il'l^l^ 


.^0^™^^.^. 


'^% 


:MR  1  1921 


BT  75  .J6  1895 

Johnson,  E.  H.  18A1-1906 

An  outline  of  systematic 
theology 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


nSna  ioxifidZere,  to  xaXdv  xarej^ert. 


AN  OUTLINE 


OF 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 

E.   H.  JOHNSON,  D.  D. 

Proftssor  in  Crozer  Theological  Seminary 
[fifth  xdition] 


AND  OF 


ECCLESIOLOGY 


HENRY  G.  WESTON,  D.  D. 

Frtiidtnt  of  Crozer  Theological  Seminary 


PHILADSLPHIA 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 


Copyright  1895  by  the 
AusiuCAN  Baptist  Publication  Socibti 


PREFACE 

TO   THE   THIRD   EDITION 


A  LARGE  part  of  the  second  edition  having  been  destroyed 
by  fire,  an  opportunity  is  afforded  in  this  third  edition  to  cor- 
rect certain  errors,  retouch  the  text,  and  add  a  second  index. 


THE  AUTHORS. 

PREFACE 

TO  THE   SECOND  EDITION 


In  this  edition,  besides  many  emendations,  some  enlarge- 
ment, and  the  addition  of  a  few  footnotes,  a  section  has  been 
added  on  the  Limitations  of  Systematic  Theology ;  the  section 
on  Conservation  has  been  recast  to  meet  the  demands  of  re- 
cent discussions,  and  that  on  Election  and  Calling  revised 
with  careful  regard  to  the  distinction  between  express  teach- 
ings of  Scripture  and  inference  from  various  sources ;  Presi- 
dent Weston  has  contributed  an  outline  of  Ecclesiology,  and 
Indexes  have  been  provided  for  the  whole. 

New  Testament  quotations  are  mostly  from  the  version  of 
Drs.  Hovey,  Broadus,  and  Weston. 

E.  H.  JOHNSON. 

Ckozer  Thbological  Seminary,  June,  1895. 

PREFACE 

TO  THE   FIRST  EDITION 


This  book  is  the  basis  of  lecture-room  expositions  and 
discussions  which  extend  through  the  Middle  and  Senior 
years  of  the  regular  course  in  the  Crozer  Theological  Semi- 
nary. Its  statements  have  therefore  been  made  as  succinct 
as  possible. 


IV  PREFACE 

Except  in  the  case  of  one  or  two  important  quotations,  and 
the  recommendation  in  a  footnote  to  Section  First  of  works 
for  general  consultation,  references  to  theological  literature 
are  reserved  for  the  class-room,  and  would  hardly  be  looked 
for  in  a  book  so  small  as  this. 

I  cannot  too  heartily  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  my 
own  revered  theological  teacher,  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson.  The 
stimulus  received  from  him,  as  he  meant  should  be  the  case, 
is  not  the  less  marked  at  points  where  I  have  reached  an 
independent  conclusion.  The  emphatic  counsel  to  his  stu- 
dents, to  eschew  speculation  and  hold  to  facts,  indicates  at 
once  the  path  of  safety  and  the  method  of  real  progress. 
No  one  who  follows  this  advice  can  escape  a  certain  individ- 
uality of  view,  especially  as  Systematic  Theology  affords 
room  for  diversity  of  judgment  within  the  limits  of  denom- 
inational accord. 

I  have  followed  the  natural  and  logical  plan  of  Dr.  Robin- 
son in  placing  the  doctrine  of  Inspiration  in  the  Introduction, 
and  in  deferring  that  of  the  Trinity  to  Soteriology.  For  rea- 
sons given  at  the  proper  point,  I  have  quite  departed  from 
the  customary  order  in  treating  "the  doctrines  of  grace." 

The  doctrine  of  the  church  and  its  ordinances  is  not  pre- 
sented in  this  work,  because  it  belongs  to  another  department 
of  instruction,  that  of  Practical  Theology.  For  my  views  on 
baptism  and  communion,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  a  tract  of 
eighty-eight  pages  lately  issued  by  the  Publication  Society 
under  the  title  "  Uses  and  Abuses  of  the  Ordinances." 

E.  H.  JOHNSON. 

Crozbr  Theological  Sbminarv,  May  la,  1891. 


CONTENTS 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 
PART  FIRST 

INTRODUCTION 


SECT.  PAGE 

1. — Definition 1 

General 1 

Special 1 

Title- 1 

2. — Rdaiion  to  Religion 2-4 

Practical 2 

Theoretical 2 

Conclusion 3 

3. — Possibility  of  Knovdng  God...  4-7 

I.  Agnostic  Positions 4 

II.  Keplies  to  Agnosticism.^...  5 

1.  General  Refutation 5 

2.  Special  Replies 5 

III.  Cautions 7 

4. — Sources  of  Theology 7-9 

1.  Bible..'. 7 

2.  Church 8 

3.  Man 8 

4.  World 9 

5. — Relations  of  Sources 9-19 

I.  World  and  Mind 9 

First    Truths     and     Em- 
piricism        9 

(a)  Origin  of  First  Truths 

conjectural 10 

(b)  Validity  recognizable 10 

(c)  Faculty  of  Intuition  orig- 

inal      10 

{d)  Faculty  developed 10 


SECT.  PAOB 

II.  Science  and  Bible 1 

The  Issue 1 

1.  Subject  to  Evidence 1 

2.  Authority  of  Science 1 

3.  Work  and  Word  of  God.  1 

4.  Evolution    not  Origina- 

tion   12 

III.  Intuition  and  Bible 12 

1.  Schleiermacher 12 

2.  Ne^v  Theology 12 

3.  Conservative  Orthodoxy.  12 

4.  Mediating  View 12 

Issue  stated 13 

Standards  compared 13 

1.  In  Intrinsic  Worth 13 

2.  In  Intelligibility 15 

3.  In  History 16 

Conclusions 17 

IV.  Church  and  Bible 18 

1.  As  to  Priority 18 

2.  As  to  Canon 19 

3.  As  to  Clerical  Authority.  19 
6. — Relations  of  Theological  Sci- 
ences   19-21 

1.  Apologetics 20 

2.  Isagogics 20 

3.  Exegesis 20 

4.  Biblical  Theology 20 

5.  Historical  Theology 20 


\i 


CONTENTS 


■■CT.  PAOS 

6.  Systematic  Theology 21 

7.  Practical  Theology 21 

7— Aims 21-22 

1.  Direct 21 

2.  Incidental 22 

8. — Limitations 22-23 

1.  Finiteness 22 

2.  Excgeeie 22 

3.  Fads 23 

9.— Methods 23 

10. — Inspiration 24-35 

I.  Definitions 24 

II.  Evidences 24 

1.  Revelation 24 

2.  Illumination 24 

3.  Inspiration 25 

Non-prophetic  and  non- 
apostolic  Writers 25 

III.  Phenomena  of  Inspiration.     26 

1.  Diversity  of  efiects 26 

2.  Relations  of  Offices 27 


SECT.                                                       rA»m 
IV.  Divine  and    Human   Ele- 
ments   28 

1.  Divine  Element 28 

2.  Human  Element 29 

(o)  Avowed  in  Phrases 29 

(6)  Secular  Sources 29 

(c)  Personal      Idiosyncra- 

sies   29 

(d)  Characteristics  of  Race 

and  Time 29 

A  Caution 30 

V.  Authority  of  Bible 31 

1.  Bible  Infallible 31 

2.  Needs  Interpretation 31 

VI.  Theories  of  Inspiration 31 

1.  Naturalistic 31 

2.  Partial 32 

3.  Plenary 33 

A.  Verbal 33 

B.  Dynamical 33 

Remarks 34 


PART  SECOND 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


■BCr.  PAGE 

U.—ExiMence  of  God 36-59 

Present  State  of  A  rgument..  36 
Existence  of  God  not  First 

Truth 36 

(o)  Not  Self-evident 36 

(b)  Not  General  Principle...  37 

(c)  Not  Logical  Correlate....  37 

(d)  Inferable      from      First 

Truths 37 

Results  of  Discussion 38 

(a)  Empiricism  discredited...  38 

(b)  Evolutionism  neutral 38 

(c)  Philosophy  friendly 38 


r.  PAGE 

(rf)  Eiemity  assumable 38 

(e)  Scope  of  Arguments 39 

I.  Cosmological  Argument ."^O 

1.  Physical  Phase 39 

A.  Process  of  Nature 39 

B.  Changes  and  Time 40 

Theory  of  Cycles 41 

2.  Metaphysical  Phase 42 

(1)  Questions 42 

A.  As    to    Force    and 

Matter 42 

B.  As    to    Divinity  of 

Force 42 


CONTENTS 


Vll 


SKCr.  PAGE 

(2)  Objections 43 

A.  Makes  God  change- 

able   43 

B.  No  proper  Moment 

for  Creation 43 

C.  Causal  judgment  em- 

pirical   44 

II.  Eutaxiological  Argument..  45 

(a)  From  Organic  Types 45 

(6)  From  Universal  Laws....  45 
Refutation  of  Material- 
ism   45 

Relations  to  Causal  Ar- 
gument   46 

III.  Teleological  Argument 47 

Objections 47 

(1)  Maker  not  infinite 47 

(2)  Design  artificial 48 

(3)  Evolution  natural 49 

rV.  Ontological  Argument 50 

1 .  Idea  of  Perfection 50 

A.  Anselm 50 

B.  Descartes 50 

2.  Idea  of  Necessary  Being..  51 

A.  Cudworth 51 

B.  Clarke 51 

V.  Moral  Argument 52 

1.  Conscience 53 

2.  Esthetic  Sensibility 53 

3.  Love 54 

4.  Trust 54 

Objections 55 

(1)  Desire  not  a  Proof. ...  55 

(2)  Moral    Faculties 

evolved 55 

VI.  Historical  Argument 56 

1.  God  in  History 56 

2.  Theism  universal 57 

3.  Theism  beneficial 57 

4.  Christianity  historical...  57 
A.  Human 58 


SECT.  PAGB 

B.  Divine 58 

C.  Divine-human 59 

Remarks  on  theistic  Ar- 
guments   59 

1 2.— Personality  of  God 59-61 

Definition 59 

Evidence 60 

Objections 60 

1.  Consciousness  impossible.  60 

2.  Limitation  involved 60 

3.  God  responsible  for  Evil.  60 
13.— Unity  of  God 61-63 

1.  Proved  by  theistic  Argu- 

ment   62 

2.  Proved    from    Omnipo- 

tence   62 

3.  Self-commended 62 

4.  Proved  from  Relation  of 

Physical  to  Moral 63 

li.— Attributes  of  God 63-76 

I.  Related  to  Duration 64 

1.  Eternity 64 

2.  Immutability 64 

3.  Spirituality 65 

II.  Related   to  Physical  Uni- 
verse   66 

1.  Omnipotence 66 

2.  Omniscience 67 

3.  Omnipresence 69 

III.  Related  to  Moral  Beings...  70 

1.  Holiness 7r 

2.  Benevolence " '• 

3.  Justice 73 

4.  Minor  Moral  Attributes..  75 
Primacy    among    Moral 

Attributes 75 

15. — Divine  Decrees 76-83 

I.  Evidences 77 

1.  From  Natural  Theology.  77 

2.  From  Scripture 78 

II.  Safeguards  against  Miscon- 
ception    80 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


■KCr.  PAGE 

1.  Decree  not  Fate 80 

2.  Decree  not  Necessity 80 

3.  Decree  but  one  Aspect  of 

Truth 80 

III.  Theories 82 

1.  Hyper-calvinistic 82 

2.  Moderate  Calvinistic 82 

3.  Pelagian 82 

4.  Moderate  Arminian 83 

16.— Creation 83-93 

I.  Testimony  of  Scriptures....  84 
II.  Testimony  of  Metaphysics..  85 
III.  Testimony  of  Natural  Sci- 
ence   86 

1.  As  to  Eternity  of  Matter.  86 

2.  As  to  Abiogenesis 88 

3.  As  to  Evolution 89 

A.  For  Scriptural  View...  90 

B.  Against    Unscriptural 

View 91 

17. — Final  Cause  in  Creation 93-95 

1.  Blessedness  and  Glory  of 

God 94 

2.  Well-being  of  Creature 94 

18. — Conservation 95-101 

I.  Monistic  Theories 95 

1.  Typical  Pantheism 95 

2.  Christian  Pantheism 96 

A.  Philosophical        Evi- 

dence   96 

Replies 97 

B.  Scientific  Evidence 97 

Replies 98 

C.  Theological  J>idence..  98 
Replies 98 

II.  Dualistic  Theories 99 

1.  Semi-pantheism 99 

2.  Deism 100 

3.  Concursus 100 

19.— Providence 101-105 

I.  General  Providence 101 


SECT.  9k9M 

1.  Scripture 101 

2.  History 101 

3.  Patriotism 101 

II.  Particular  Providence 102 

1.  Scripture 102 

2.  General  Providence 102 

3.  Christian  Experience 103 

III.  Theories 103 

1.  Deistic 103 

2.  Pantheistic 103 

3.  Creatio  continuata 103 

4.  Concursus 103 

5.  Psychical 104 

Conclusion 105 

20.— Prayer 105-108 

I.  Spiritual  Benefits 106 

II.  Temporal  Benefits 107 

21.— Miracles 108-114 

I.  Their  Nature 108 

n.  Credibility 109 

1.  Possible 109 

2.  Probable 109 

3.  Unmistakable    to    Wit- 

nesses   109 

4.  Witnesses  trustworthy...  110 

5.  Christ  is  risen 110 

6.  Miracles  congruous  with 

Doctrine 110 

m.  Office Ill 

1.  Direct Ill 

2.  Indirect 112 

IV.  Congruity  with  Doctrine...  113 

1.  Substantiates  Miracles...  113 

2.  Substantiates  Doctrine...  113 

3.  Explains  Cessation 114 

22.— Angeh 115-119 

I.  Good  Angels 115 

1.  Perceived 115 

2.  Notable  Occasions 115 

3.  Real  to  Christ 116 

4.  Relation  to  his  Doctrine.  1 1 6 


CONTENTS 


IX 


PAGE     SECT. 


5.  Office  to  Saints 116 

6.  Place  in  Creation 117 

7.  Attested  by  Polytheism..  117 


11.  Evil  Spirits 118 

1.  Origin 118 

2.  Chief. 118 

3.  Activity 118 


PART  THIRD 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


SKCT.  PAGE 

23.— Nature  of  Man 1 20-121 

(a)  Human  Reason 120 

(b)  Capacity  of  Progress 121 

2i.— Creation  of  Man 121-124 

1.  According  to  Bible 121 

2.  According  to  Science _.  122 

(a)  No  known  Ancestor 122 

(6)  Peculiar  Anatomy 122 

(c)  Brain  Capacity 122 

(d)  Faculty  of  Reason 123 

Conclusion 123 

25.— Unity  of  Race 124 

According  to  Scripture 124 

According  to  Science 124 

2Q.—Constiiution  of  Man 124-127 

I.  Theories 124 

1.  Dichotomous 124 

2.  Trichotomous 125 

II.  Evidence  for  Dichotomy....  125 

1.  Bible's  Psychology 125 

2.  Paul's  various  Meanings.  125 

3.  Uniformity  erroneous...  126 

4.  Functions    not    trichot- 

omic 126 

5.  Consciousness    not    tri- 

chotomic 126 

V— Origin  of  Souls 127-129 

Pre-existence 127 

Traducianism  preferred  to 
Crcationism 127 


1.  Scriptures 127 

2.  Heredity 128 

3.  Psycho-physics 128 

4.  Burden  of  Proof 128 

Objections  answered 128 

28.— Ivmge  of  God  in  Man 129-130 

1.  Personality 129 

2.  Original  Innocence 129 

3.  Dominion  over  Beasts 130 

29. — Original     C  ondition     of 

Man 130-131 

1.  Bible 130 

2.  Archaeology 130 

3.  History 130 

30.— Low  of  God 131-135 

I.  Idea  of  Law 131 

1.  Definition 131 

2.  Distinctions  131 

3.  Inferences 132 

II.  Source  of  Law 133 

1.  The  Creator 133 

2.  His  Nature 133 

III.  Obligation  of  Law 134 

1.  Moral 134 

2.  Religious 134 

Remarks 134 

Sl.-Sin 135-138 

L  Definition  135 

1.  Act 135 

2.  Principle 136 


CONTENTS 


8»CT.  PAGE 

3.  State 136 

11.  Essence  136 

1.  Sensuality? 136 

2.  Evolution? 136 

3.  Finiteness? 137 

4.  Selfishness? 137 

5.  Abnormality? 138 

32.—FallofMan 138-141 

I.  Biblical  Account 139 

II.  Problem  of  Fall 139 

(o)  Ethical  Difficulty 139 

(6)  Theological  Difficulty....  39 

III.  Theories  of  Fall 140 

1.  Ethical  Necessity 140 

2.  Divine  Causation 141 

33. — Penal  Consequences  of  Fall.l  il-153 

Proposed  Distinction 141 

I.  Death 141 

1.  Spiritual 142 

2.  Physical 142 

II.  Native  Depravity 143 

1.  Extent 143 

2.  Theories 144 

A.  Pelagian 144 

B.  Semi-pelagian,  etc....  144 

C.  Federalist 145 

D.  Realistic 146 

III.  Loss  of  Moral  Freedom  ....  146 

1.  Theories 147 

1.  Of  Will 147 

2.  Of  Freedom 147 

A.  Self-determination 

of  Will 147 


SECT.  p^ei 

B.  Self-determination 

of  Ego 147 

2.  Objections 148 

A.  Necessitarian 148 

B.  Libertarian  150 

3.  Conclusions 161 

A.  Ego  chooses 151 

B.  Ego  conditioned 151 

C.  Freedom  and  Neces- 

sity Coincide 151 

D.  Present     Freedom 

formal 151 

E.  Future  Freedom  real  152 
IV.  Derangement  of  Conscience  152 

34.  —  Inability    and    Responsibil- 
ity  153-155 

I.  Inability 153 

1.  Error  as  to  Ability 153 

2.  Error  as  to  Choice 154 

II.  Responsibility 154 

1.  Choice  actual 154 

2.  Represents  character 154 

3.  Even  with  God 154 

4.  Penalty  inevitable 154 

5.  Ethically  justifiable 155 

6.  Theologically  inexplic- 

able   156 

35. — Salvation  of  Infants 156 

1.  Infants    morally    incom- 

petent    156 

2.  Blessed  by  Christ 156 

3.  Christ  parallel  to  Adam  ...  156 

4.  Vision  of  Christ  at  Death ...  156 


PART  FOURTH 


SOTERIOLOGY 


3ft. — Preparation   for    Coming    of 

Christ 157-158 


I.  Preparation  to  accept  Gos- 
pel  .„„.,.....,........  157 


CONTENTS 


XI 


«CT.  PAGE 

1.  Judaism 157 

2.  Heathenism 157 

II.  Provision  to  extend  Gospel.  158 

1.  Roman  Empire 158 

2.  Greek  Language 168 

3.  Oppositions 158 

37. — Humanity  of  Christ 158-159 

38.— Divinity  of  Christ 159-166 

I.  Methods  of  Inquiry 159 

1.  Textual 159 

2.  Historical 159 

II.  Evidence 160 

(I)  To  Mary 160 

(II)  To  Disciples 161 

1.  What  they  saw 161 

2.  What  Jesus  said 162 

(III)  To  Apostolic  Church...  163 

1.  From  Holy  Spirit 163 

2.  From  Offices  of  Christ  163 

3.  From  Old  Testament.  164 
Resultant  Titles 164 

(IV)  To    Post-apostolic 

Church 165 

1.  Offices  received  from 

Christ 165 

2.  Response  of  Christian 

Piety 165 

(V)  The  Christ  of  History...  165 

III.  Theories  as  to  Nature  of 

Christ 165 

1.  Docetism 166 

2.  Humanitarianism 166 

3.  Subordinationism 166 

39. — Relation  of  Two   Natures  in 

Christ 167-178 

1.  Apollinarism 167 

2.  Nestorianism 168 

3.  Eutychianism  168 

4.  Chalcedon  -    Constanti- 

nople   168 

6.  Realism 169 


SECT.  PAOK 

6.  Kenotism 170 

7.  Progressive  Incarnation..  171 

8.  Physiological  Theory 172 

(1)  One  Person  172 

(2)  One  Species 173 

(3)  One  Soul 174 

Cautions 177 

iO.—Two  States  of  Christ 178-180 

I.  Humiliation 178 

1.  Limitations 178 

2.  Discipline 179 

3.  Rejection 179 

IL  Exaltation 179 

1.  Basis 179 

2.  Relation  to  Humanity....  179 

3.  Offices 180 

il.—Holy  Spirit 181-183 

L  Divinity 181 

1.  Divine  Name 181 

2.  Divine  Attributes 181 

3.  Divine  Prerogatives 181 

4.  Christian  Consciousness...  181 
IL  Personality 181 

1.  Earlier  Biblical  Usage...  181 

2.  Later  Biblical  Usage 182 

42.— Offices  of  Holy  Spirit 184-188 

I.  Dispensation  of  the  Spirit...  184 

IL  General  Office 185 

in.  Offices  under  Old  Covenant  185 

1.  Symbols 185 

2.  Prophecy 186 

3.  Regeneration 186 

IV.  Offices     under    the    New 

Covenant 186 

1.  Attest  Claims  of  Christ...  186 

2.  Unfold  his  Mission 187 

3.  Renew  and  sanctify 187 

4.  Organize  Church 187 

5.  Make  it  Temple  of  God...  187 

6.  Assure  the  Inheritance...  188 
4S.— Trinity 188-196 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


8BCT.  PAOB 

I.  Definition 189 

II.  Evidence 189 

1.  From  New  Testament...  189 

2.  From  Old  Testament 191 

3.  P'rom  Psychology 191 

III.   Relations  of  Persons 192 

1.  Sabellian 193 

2.  Nicene 194 

3.  Biblical 195 

U.-Offieee  of  Christ 196-197 

1.  TheOflSces 196 

2.  Interdependence 196 

3.  Doctrines    classi6ed    by 
Offices 197 

45. — Atonement 197-236 

Part  First:  Historical  Survey..  198 

I.  Patristic  Theory 198 

II,  Satisfaction  Theory 198 

Anselm 198 

Scholastics 199 

Roman  Church 199 

Reformers 200 

Federalists 200 

(I)  Defects  of  Anselmic  Form  201 
(II)  Objections   to    Federalist 

Form 201 

1.  Unbiblical 201 

2.  Factitious 201 

3.  Morally  insufficient 202 

4.  Morally  objectionable...  203 
m.  Morallnfluence  Theory 203 

Earlier  Form 203 

Later  Forms. 203 

The  Issue 204 

1.  Requirement    of    Con- 

science    204 

2.  Requirement  of  God 205 

3.  Christian  Experience 205 

4.  Moral  Penalties 206 

IV.  Governmental  Theory 206 

1.  Typical  Form 206 


SKCT.  TAmn 

2.  Arminian  Form... 207 

3.  Objections 208 

(o)  Against  divine  Nature  208 

(b)  Against  Law 208 

(c)  Histrionic 208 

(d)  Utilitarian 208 

(e)  Political 208 

V.  Realistic  Theories 208 

1.  Pantheistic 209 

2.  Man  ward  Efficiency 209 

3.  God  ward  Efficiency 209 

A.  Merits 210 

B.  Defects 210 

VI.  Conclusions 211 

1.  Effects  of  Philosophies...  211 

2.  Truths  and  Errors 211 

3.  False  Exclusiveness 212 

Part  Second :  Biblical  Statement.  213 

I.  Christ  a  Gift  of  Love 213 

n.  Crucifixion  expiatory 213 

1.  Sacrifices 213 

2.  Prophecy 214 

3.  Doctrine  of  Jesus 214 

4.  Doctrine  of  Apostles 215 

III.  Resurrection  piacular 216 

1.  Acts 216 

2.  Epistles 217 

IV.  Atonement  morally  Effica- 

cious   218 

1.  Sacrifices 218 

2.  Required  Repentance 219 

3.  Words  of  Christ 219 

4.  Cross  of  Christ 220 

5.  Resurrection  of  Christ...  223 
Summary    of      Biblical 

Teaching 223 

Part  Third  :  Theoretical  State- 
ment   223 

Postulates 224 

I.  Christ  a  Representative 224 

1.  Of  God 224 


CONTENTS 


Xlll 


*SCT.  PAGB 

2.  Of  Man 224 

A.  In  his  divinity 225 

B.  In  his  humanity 227 

11.  The  Representative  a  Sin- 
bearer 229 

1.  Historically 229 

2.  Ethically 229 

III.  The  Sin-bearer  expiates. ...  231 

1.  Sin-bearing  expiatory. .. .  232 

2.  Expiation  adequate. 232 

IV.  The    Expiation    Regener- 

ates   234 

1.  By  Teaching 234 

2.  By  Lordship 234 

3.  By  Crucifixion 235 

4.  By  Resurrection 235 

Theoretic  Conclusions 235 

(1)  Objective  Efficacy 235 

(2)  Subjective  Efficacy 236 

(3)  Counter  Efiects  recon- 

ciled   236 

46.  — Necessity  of  A  tonement . . .  236-239 

Why  the  Incarnation  ? 236 

I.  Necessary  to  God? 237 

1.  According  to  his  Nature..  237 

2.  Limits  of  Knowledge 237 

n.  Necessary  to  Man? 238 

1.  Fact  of  Atonement 238 

2.  Demand  of  Justice 238 

3.  Needs  of  Government....  238 

4.  Means    of     Moral     Re- 

newal   238 

5.  Fitness    to     Ancient 

Worthies 239 

47.  —Extent  of  A  tonement 239-240 

1.  In  Respect  of  Purpose...  239 

2.  In  Respect  of  Provision..  240 

48. — Intercession  of  Christ 241-242 

49.— Ordo  Scdutis 242-243 

50.— Election  and  Calling 243-251 

The  Controversy 243 


SBCT.  PAOB 

L  Fact  of  Election 244 

1.  The  Elect 244 

2.  The  non-elect 245 

n.  Conditions  of  Election 247 

1.  Foreknowledge 247 

2.  Not  Merit 248 

3.  Not  Caprice 248 

4.  Faith? 248 

III.  Execution  of  Election — the 

Divine  Calling 249 

The  Problem 249 

Solution  unnecessary 250 

51. — Repentance  and  Faith....  251-260 
I.  Repentance 252 

1.  New  View 252 

2.  New  Feeling 252 

3.  New  Life 253 

IL  Faith 253 

1.  Nature  of  Faith 253 

A.  Discerning 254 

B.  Realizing 255 

C.  Trusting 256 

2.  Offices  of  Faith 256 

(1)  As  Discernment 256 

(2)  As  Realization 257 

(3)  As  Trust 258 

A.  Objective  Office 258 

B.  Subjective  Office 258 

52.  —Justification 260-265 

I.  Nature  of  Justification 260 

II.  Evidence  of  Justification...,  260 

in.  Difficulties  in  Doctrine 261 

1.  Acquittal  of  Guilty 261 

2.  Acceptance  of  Wicked...  262 

IV.  Relation  to  Regeneration...  262 
L  As  Fiat 262 

2.  As  Forgiveness 263 

3.  As  Adoption 263 

4.  As  procured  by  Atone- 

ment   263 

5.  As  conditioned  by  Faith.  263 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


■BCr.  FAQE 

6.  As  reconciling  Texts 263 

Conclusion 264 

53.— Regeneration 265-272 

I.  Nature  of  Regeneration....  265 

1.  Scriptural  View 266 

2.  Errors 266 

A.  Of  Sacramentalists 266 

B.  Of  Annihilationists 267 

C.  Of   Plymouth    Breth- 

ren   267 

n.  Agent  and  Means  of   Re- 
generation   268 

1.  Agent 268 

2.  Means 269 

in.  Necessity  of  Regeneration..  270 

1.  Relation  to  Atonement...  270 

2.  Importance  of  Result 270 

rV.  Evidences  of  Regeneration.  270 

1.  As  to  Father 270 


■■or.  tA9t 

2.  As  to  Son 270 

3.  As  to  Spirit 271 

4.  Dutifulness 271 

5.  Love 271 

6.  Understanding 272 

M.—Sanctificati<m 272-278 

I.  Possible  Extent 273 

1.  Gradual 273 

2.  Complete  at  Death 273 

3.  Not     complete      before 

Death 273 

11.  Provision    for    Sanctifica- 

tion 274 

III.  Errors 274 

1.  Perfectionism 275 

2.  Higher  Life 277 

55.  —Perseverance 279-281 

1.  Human  Aspect 279 

2.  Divine  Aspect 280 


FART  FIVE 


ESCHATOLOGY 


•ECT.  PAQK 

56.— Conditions  of  Inquiry 282-283 

Obscurity  of  Data 282 

1.  Beyond  Experience 282 

2.  Enigmatic  Credentials 282 

3.  Prophetic  Perspective 283 

4.  Contingent  Predictions...  283 

5.  Problem    of  the    Apoca- 

lypse   283 

57.— Death 283-285 

1.  Testimony  of  Scripture....  284 

2.  Testimony    of    Conscious- 

ness   285 

3.  Testimony  of  Science 285 

68.— IntermediaU  State 286-287 

1.  Of  Wicked 286 

2.  Of  Righteous 286 


A  Conjecture 287 

59.—Second  Coming  of  Christ... 287 -292 

I.  The  Advent 287 

n.  Relation  to  Millennium....  288 

1.  Rival  Opinions 288 

2.  Contrasted  Histories 288 

3.  Counter  Arguments 290 

4.  Suspended  Verdict 291 

60.  —Resurrection 292-297 

I.  Scriptural  Teaching 292 

1.  Fact  of  Resurrection 292 

2.  Subjects  of  Resurrection.  292 

3.  Nature  of  Resurrection..  292 
U.  Theories  of  Resurrection...  294 

1.  Identity  of  Material 294 

2.  Rise  in  Spirit 295 


CONTENTS 


XV 


■KCT.  PASS 

3.  Ethereal  Enswathement.  295 

4.  Organic  Identity.. 296 

m.  Conclusions 296 

1.  Theories  imperil  Faith..  296 

2.  Theories  lower  the  Doc- 

trine   297 

61.— Last  Judgment 297-298 

1.  The  Event 297 

2.  The  Judge 297 

3.  The  Procedure 297 

4.  The  Criterion 298 

62.— Final  State 299-309 

I.  Of  Wicked 299 

1.  Eternal  Punishment 299 


SECT.  PAGE 

2.  Its  Sources 299 

3.  Its  Nature 299 

4.  Errors 300 

(1)  Annihilationism 300 

(2)  Eternity    of   Pliysical 

Death 300 

(3)  Restorationism 301 

(4)  Future  Probation 304 

II.  Of  the  Righteous 306 

1.  Bodily  State 306 

2.  Mental  State 307 

3.  Moral  State 307 

4.  Social  State 307 

5.  Beatific  Vision 308 


AN  OUTLINE 


OF 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


PART  I 
INTRODUCTION 

§    I.    Definition. 

Theology  is  an  orderly  statement  of  beliefs  concerning 
God  and  his  relations  to  his  works.  If  those  beliefs  are 
accurately  stated,  and  their  order  determined  by  their  rela- 
tions, Theology  may  claim  the  rank  of  a  science. 

In  this  general  sense  of  the  term,  Theology  may  present 
the  beliefs  of  a  false  religion  ;  but  theism  accepts  a  true  and 
reasoned  faith  concerning  God  as  the  highest  achievement  of 
philosophy,  while  Christian  Theology  sets  forth  the  teachings 
of  revealed  religion  and  vindicates  their  trustworthiness. 

Christian  Theology  takes  special  forms  which  are  termed, 
according  to  their  sources.  Natural,  Biblical,  Historical,  Dog- 
matic ;  or,  according  to  their  aims,  Apologetic,  Polemic, 
Practical.  Systematic  Theology,  consulting  all  accredited 
sources,  and  aiming  to  present  a  complete  view  of  Christian 
truth,  owes  its  title  to  its  method  :  it  tests  and  arranges 
doctrines  by  their  logical  relations.^ 

The  following  works,  representing  different  schools  of  belief,  are  worth  having 
at  hand  for  consultation : 


8  RELATION  TO   RELIGION 

§  2.   Relation  to  Religion. 

Doctrines,  or  inculcated  beliefs,  are  indispensable  to  relig- 
ion. Religion,  in  its  practical  aspect,  is  the  service  of  God ; 
but  the  service  offered  must  correspond  to  what  are  believed 
to  be  the  natures  of  God  and  of  man. 

The  importance  of  doctrine  to  religion  more  fully  appears 
in  the  defense  of  religion  as  reasonable.  Every  one-sided 
attempt  has  proved  injurious.  The  scholastic  subjection  of 
faith  and  conduct  to  authority  led  to  a  contentious  but  un- 
fruitful dogmatism,  and  finally  provoked  revolt.  On  the 
other  hand,  to  emancipate  religion  from  authority  is  to  con- 

1.  Apologetics  and  Christian  Evidences. — Martineau,  Study  of  Religion; 
Diman,  Theistic  Argument ;  Harris,  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism ;  Fisher, 
Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief;  Christlieb,  Modem  Doubt  and  Chris- 
tian Belief;  Footman,  Reassuring  Hints;  Robinson,  Christian  Evidences. 

2.  Biblical  Theology. — Oehler,  Old  Testament  Theology;  Weiss,  Biblical 
Theology  of  New  Testament ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Theology  of  New  Testament. 

3.  Historical  Theology. — Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrine  ;  Shedd,  History 
of  Doctrine ;  Crippen,  History  of  Doctrine ;  Lichtenberger,  History  of  German 
Theology  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  ;   Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom. 

4.  Systematic  Theology. — Baptist :  Robinson,  Christian  Theology ;  Strong, 
Systematic  Theology ;  Hovey,  Manual  of  Theology  and  Ethics ;  Clarke,  Outline 
of  Christian  Theology. 

Presbyterian  and  Congregationalist :  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christian  Doc- 
trine ;  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology ;  Chas.  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology ;  Fair- 
child,  Elements  of  Theology  ;  Progressive  Orthodoxy  (New  Theology) . 

Modern  Reformed  and  Lutheran  :  Domer,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine ; 
Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics  ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics. 

Methodist :  Miley,  Systematic  Theology. 

Unitarian  :  Farley,  Unitarianism  Defined ;  Parker,  Discourse  of  Religion. 

Roman  Catholic :  Catholic  Dictionary;  Mohler,  Symbolism. 

5.  Monographs. — Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin  ;  Liddon,  Divinity  of  our  Lord ; 
Dorner,  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ ;  Bruce,  Humiliation  of 
Christ ;  Fairbaim,  Place  of  Christ  in  Modem  Theology  ;  Ritschl,  History  of  Doc- 
trine of  Justification  and  Reconciliation. 

Encyclopedias,  etc. — Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  ;  Cremer,  Biblico-Theo- 
logical  Lexicon  of  New  Testament  Greek. 


RELATION  TO   REUGION  3 

sign  it  to  the  vagaries  of  rationalism.  Kant's  reduction  of 
religion  to  the  fulfillment  of  moral  duties  as  divine  require- 
ments  could  not  but  produce  an  ethical  rationalism,  vulgarly 
embodied  in  the  saying  that,  if  a  man  does  right,  it  matters 
not  what  he  believes.  Hegel's  dialectical  treatment  of  relig- 
ion as  idea,  while  flouting  the  rationalism  then  current, 
involved  an  idealistic  rationalism  of  its  own.  The  deduction 
by  Schleiermacher  of  all  religious  truth  from  the  sense  of 
dependence  and  help  begat  the  now  popular  rationalism  of 
the  feelings.  The  protest  of  Lechler,  as  against  all  these, 
that  religion  is  essentially  an  act  of  God,  a  communication  of 
himself  to  man,  re-opens  the  way  to  a  rationalistic  mysticism. 
Finally,  the  futile  attempt  of  Agnosticism  to  foster  the  wor- 
ship of  an  unknown  God,  and  of  Secularism  to  devise  a  relig- 
ion with  no  God,  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  religious  doc- 
trine to  a  religious  life.  No  real  religion  is  purely  ethical. 
Not  even  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  foundation  for  any 
Christian  sect. 

The  truth  in  each  of  the  theories  concerning  religion  is 
needed  as  a  safeguard  to  the  truth  in  the  other  theories.  It 
would  seem  that,  in  order  to  religion,  first,  man  must  be  con- 
stitutionally capable,  on  the  one  hand,  of  feeling  dependence 
and  obligation,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  of  recognizing  help 
and  duty  when  presented  ;  secondly,  for  the  guidance  of  man- 
kind, depraved  and  ignorant,  the  truth  concerning  God  must 
be  explicitly  and  supernaturally  revealed ;  thirdly,  since  even 
in  recognizing  the  Divine  command  and  grace,  the  human 
heart  is  unable  to  accept  them,  God  must  impart  ability  so  to 
do ;  and  thus,  fourthly,  man  at  length  fulfills  his  religious 
function  :  he  trusts,  loves,  adores,  and  obeys  God.  It  is  the 
convictions  wrought  into  the  mind  during  this  process  that 
Systematic  Theology  attempts  to  elucidate  and  classify. 


4  THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  KNOWING  GOD 

Such  an  account  of  the  relations  of  religion  to  theology 
suggests  the  inquiries  whether  it  is  possible  to  know  God, 
and  what  are  the  sources  of  that  knowledge. 

§  3.    The  Possibility  of  Knowing  God. 

Theology  is  withstood  at  the  threshold  by  modern  Agnos- 
ticism, the  denial  either  that  it  can  be  known  whether  there 
is  a  God,  or  else  that  it  can  be  known  what  sort  of  being  he 
is.  Agnosticism  thus  replaces  atheism  in  opposing  Chris- 
tianity, but  claims  to  be  a  friend  of  religion.  Whether  the 
existence  of  God  can  be  known  is  a  subject  for  later  con- 
sideration. Assuming  that  he  exists,  the  present  question  is, 
Can  finite  minds  form  correct  ideas  concerning  an  infinite 
Being  .■* 

I.    AGNOSTIC    POSITIONS. 

The  denial  that  they  can  is  due  to  postulates  which 
modern  scientists  have  accepted  from  metaphysicians.  Kant 
taught  that,  inasmuch  as  all  knowledge  is  through  relations, 
and  relations  are  determined  by  the  mind  itself,  therefore  we 
cannot  know  things  as  they  are,  and  our  knowledge  is  valid 
only  for  ourselves.  Hegel  insisted  that  the  Absolute  includes 
all  reality,  even  moral  evil,  to  the  confusion  of  theological  no- 
tions. Sir  William  Hamilton  argued  that,  since  all  knowledge 
is  through  relations  or  conditions  of  the  knowing  subject  and 
of  the  object  known,  it  is  impossible  to  know  the  Uncondi- 
tioned— that  is,  the  Absolute  or  Infinite.  Dean  Mansel 
urged  that  to  ascribe  causation  to  the  Absolute  or  quality  to 
the  Infinite  is  to  think  of  these  as  limited,  and  therefore  it  is 
in  the  interest  of  faith  itself  to  relinquish  all  attempts  at  a 
rational  theology.  Herbert  Spencer  turned  these  admissions 
against  the  doctrine  of  a    personal  God,  but  insisted  that, 


THE   POSSIBILITY  OF   KNOWING   GOD  5 

although  religion  and  science  alike  lead  to  the  Unknowable, 
we  are  compelled  to  think  of  this  as  the  actual  and  absolute 
substance  and  force,  the  ground  and  the  cause  of  all  that  can 
be  known. 

II.    REPLIES    TO    AGNOSTICISM. 

1.  General  Refutation, 

Though  subtle,  these  speculations  attempt  too  much. 
Denying  on  a  priori  grounds  that  it  is  possible  to  know  God, 
they  claim  to  have  invalidated  thus  the  a  posteriori  evidence 
as  to  his  nature.     But,  on  the  contrary — 

{a)  If  inference  from  the  infinite  is  untrustworthy,  it  is  for 
that  very  reason  incompetent  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of 
the  works  of  God.     In  order  to  do  this — 

{b)  Agnosticism  would  need  to  show  that,  if  God  exists 
and  is  in  any  relation  whatever  to  the  universe,  whether  as  its 
creator,  architect,  upholder,  or  energizer,  still  these  relations 
are  incapable  of  affording  to  rational  creatures  the  least  in- 
timation as  to  what  kind  of  being  he  is  ;  in  other  words,  that 
what  God  does  signifies  nothing.  But,  however  difficult  the 
problems  in  which  the  Absolute  or  the  Infinite  is  a  factor,  it 
is  inevitable  that  the  works  of  God  should  reveal  him. 

{c)  As  we  shall  see,  it  is  an  exhibition  of  Divine  attributes 
that  alone  goes  to  prove  the  Divine  existence ;  any  way  of 
knowing,  a  priori  or  a  posteriori,  that  there  is  a  God,  is  a  way 
of  knowing  what  he  is.  To  admit  his  existence  and  deny  his 
attributes  is  self-contradiction. 

Agnosticism,  then,  though  professed  by  men  of  science,  is 
unwarrantably  speculative.     Facts  would  not  suggest  it. 

2.  Special  Replies. 

Besides  this  general  evidence  in  rebuttal,  it  is  perhaps  not 


6  THE   POSSIBILITY  OF   KNOWING  GOD 

impossible  to  detect  the  fallacy  in  each  of  the  agnostic  posi- 
tions above  stated.     Thus  it  may  be  replied — 

(a)  To  Kant,  that  to  deny  the  objectivity  of  relations  is  to 
deny  what  the  structure  of  the  mind  obliges  it  to  affirm,  and 
what  is  attested  by  every  step  in  the  progress  of  natural 
science.  The  so-called  "  forms  of  thought  "  are  really  illus- 
trations of  the  mind's  competence  intimately  to  know  •'  things  . 
in  themselves."  E.  g.,  to  know  the  phenomenon  of  extension ' 
is  to  know  in  part  what  matter  essentially  is. 

{b)  To  Hegel,  that  absolute  perfection,  not  metaphysical 
illimitability,  is  the  determinative  reality  in  God  ;  but  per- 
fection is  definite,  knowable,  and  excludes  every  form  of 
evil. 

{c)  To  Hamilton,  because  there  neither  is  nor  can  be  any 
evidence  that  a  being  necessarily  unrelated,  and  therefore 
strictly  unknowable,  exists,  his  objections  do  not  apply  to 
ideas  concerning  a  Supreme  Being  of  whose  existence  we 
have  proof. 

{d)  To  Mansel,  as  to  the  Absolute  :  he  is  the  self-existent, 
the  Being  to  whom  no  relations  are  necessary,  on  whom  all 
other  beings  depend,  and  who  through  this  relation  is  know- 
able.  As  to  the  Infinite  :  God  is  not  infinite  in  all  respects, 
but  only  in  all  excellencies  ;  he  is  perfect ;  but  perfection  is 
delimitation,  hence  knowable.  As  to  both  the  Absolute  and 
the  Infinite  :  it  is  conceivable  that  God,  in  constituting  rela- 
tions, has  voluntarily  accepted  limitations,  and  thus  brought 
himself  within  that  range  of  knowledge  which  agnostics 
themselves  admit. 

(e)  To  Spencer,  that  the  distinction  between  substance  and 
quality,  phenomenon  and  noumenon,  is  purely  logical  ;  that  to 
know  phenomena  or  qualities  is  to  know  substances  as  related 
to  the  organ  of  knowledge,  and  does  not  imply  that  so  much 


SOURCES  OF  THEOLOGY  7 

as  thus  becomes  known  would  be  contradicted  by  further 
knowledge  through  fuller  relations. 

III.    CAUTIONS. 

Due  regard  to  the  difficulties  which  may  be  discovered  in 
each  position  from  the  opposite  point  of  view  suggests  the 
following  cautions  : 

1.  Our  verifiable  knowledge  of  God  is  not  necessarily  suf- 
ficient to  solve  all  problems  in  theology.  On  the  contrary, 
since  God  is  infinite,  he  can  be  known  but  in  part ;  and  finite 
intelligence  should  expect  to  find  its  just  conceptions  merging 
into  the  inscrutable.  We  may  hold  that  every  excellence  of 
God  is  boundless  without  venturing  to  infer  what,  in  any 
given  case,  his  boundless  excellence  will  lead  him  to  do. 
When  the  obscurity  of  a  theological  problem  is  unmistakably 
due  to  the  factor  of  the  infinite,  it  is  unreasonable  to  believe 
that  the  problem  can  be  thoroughly  solved.  This  need  not 
be  charged  to  incorrectly  apprehending,  but  to  inability  of 
comprehending,  the  infinite. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  if  our  necessary  conceptions  of  God 
are  invalidated  by  antinomies  which  they  involve,  then  ulti- 
mate ideas  in  mental  and  physical  science  are  invalidated  by 
corresponding  antinomies,  and  all  knowledge  is  at  an  end. 
If  divine  things  must  be  excluded  from  the  realm  of  science, 
nescience  is  virtually  extended  over  every  sphere ;  and  thus, 
as  always  heretofore,  agnosticism  refutes  itself. 

§  4.  Sources  of  Theology. 

Every  unmistakable  representation  of  himself  which  God 
has  afforded  must  be  consulted  by  Systematic  Theology. 

I.  The  Bible  was  given  expressly  in  order  to  declare  the 
actual  and  purposed  relations  of  God  to  man.     The  Bible 


8  SOURCES  OF  THEOLOGY 

therefore  necessarily  is  what  it  has  proved  to  be,  the  direct 
source  and  the  final  standard  of  Christian  doctrine. 

2.  The  Christian  Church  keeps  alive  a  consciousness  of 
the  facts  with  which  the  New  Testament  deals,  a  conscious- 
ness which  makes  its  teachings  seem  momentous  truths.  Such 
presupposed  facts  are  human  sinfulness,  weakness,  salvability, 
and  actual  experience  of  redemption  through  means  of  which 
the  New  Testament  is  a  record. 

Hence  the  church  is  properly  entrusted  with  the  oracles 
of  God,  and  has  progressively  interpreted  them.  As  a  further 
consequence,  the  formal  definitions  and  the  current  tradition 
of  its  faith  are  an  actual  source  of  the  views  accepted  in  any 
denomination  of  Christians,  and  must  be  consulted,  in  order 
to  secure  the  fruits  of  biblical  study  during  the  past  Chris- 
tian centuries. 

3.  Man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  that  image, 
so  far  as  it  remains,  is  a  revelation  of  God  in  every  indi- 
vidual : 

{a)  Man's  moral  constitution  affords  assurance  that  his 
Maker  was  a  moral  being.  The  law  of  God  awakens  a  re- 
sponse in  his  heart  (Rom.  2  :  14,  i  5),  and  is  written  afresh  in 
the  hearts  of  believers  (Heb.  10  :  16).  If,  then,  our  ethical 
convictions  were  a  demonstrably  correct  reading  of  the  laws 
inscribed  in  our  moral  constitution,  they  would  be  an  authori- 
tative criterion  in  theology ;  but,  whether  normal  or  perverted, 
they  remain  an  actual  standard,  a  medium  through  which  we 
view  the  moral  nature  of  God.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  far 
they  are  a  safe  standard. 

{b)  Similarly,  the  laws  of  human  thought  supply  argu- 
ments for  the  existence  of  God,  and  in  so  doing  shape  our 
conception  of  the  corresponding  aspects  in  his  nature.  Theo- 
logians, it   is  true,  may  claim   without  warrant  that  certain 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES  9 

ideas  are  required  by  the  very  nature  of  mind,  and  it  may  be 
a  grave  question  what  inference  to  draw  from  ideas  unmistak- 
ably necessary  ;  but  the  opposite  of  necessary  ideas  being 
unthinkable,  it  is  as  idle  to  deny  their  authority  in  theology 
as  in  other  spheres  of  thought. 

4.  The  physical  universe  rQ.vQ2t[s\ts  CxQBXor.  "The  invis- 
ible things  of  him  .  .  .  are  perceived  through  the  things 
that  are  made  "  (Rom.  i  :  20).  So  far  as  this  revelation  is 
correctly  apprehended,  it  must  be  accepted. 

§  5.  Relations  of  the  Sources. 

The  rapid  progress  of  the  natural  sciences  has  been  at- 
tended with  so  important  modifications,  or  attempts  at  modi- 
fication, in  psychology,  ethics,  and  theism,  as  to  call  for  fresh 
inquiry  into  the  relative  authority  of  the  accepted  sources  of 
theology. 

I.    THE    PHYSICAL    WORLD    AND    THE    HUMAN    MIND. 

Every  adequate  defense  of  theism  avowedly  assumes  the 
validity  of  primary  beliefs  or  first  truths  :  such  as  that  every 
event  has  a  cause,  and  that  there  is  a  real  antithesis  between 
right  and  wrong.  Since  these  conceptions  are  primary,  they 
can  neither  be  analyzed  and  defined,  nor,  if  disputed,  can  they 
be  proved.  They  are  accepted  because  at  once  self-evident 
and  necessary ;  that  is,  they  are  ideas  the  contrary  of  which 
cannot  be  believed.  As  self-evident  they  are  apprehended  by 
intuition  ;  that  is,  immediately,  not  by  inference. 

But  empirical  philosophers,  including  many  evolutionists, 
deny  that  first  truths  are  cognized  by  an  original  and  neces- 
sary intuition.  The  elder  empiricists  held  that  they  are  the 
individual's  inferences  from  his  own  experience,  at  most  cor- 
roborated by  the  experience  of  other  individuals  ;  while  many 


lO  RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES 

evolutionists  explain  them  as  impressions  inherited,  accord- 
ing to  a  physiological  law,  from  the  cumulative  experience  of 
our  ancestors.  Herbert  Spencer  therefore  regards  primary 
beliefs  as  intuitive  to  the  individual,  empirical  to  the  race. 

In  reply  we  may  insist  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  trace  the 
rise  in  consciousness  of  first  truths  or  primary  beliefs  in  order 
to  establish  their  authority.  On  the  contrary,  we  notice 
that  : 

(a)  Their  origin  can  only  be  conjectured.  It  is  impossible 
for  memory  to  go  back  so  far,  or  for  observation  to  penetrate 
so  deeply  into  the  operations  of  a  child's  mind,  as  to  discover 
whether  these  ideas  arise  for  the  first  time  as  inferences  from 
particular  cases,  or  as  intuitions  of  a  general  truth  underlying 
judgment  upon  a  particular  case. 

(d)  However  primary  beliefs  originate,  their  validity  is  now 
recognized  by  a  faculty  of  knowledge  as  prompt  and  unerring 
as  any  we  possess.  To  doubt  them  would  be  to  stultify  one's 
self.  It  is  impossible  rationally  to  hold  the  contrary  of  neces- 
sary ideas. 

(c)  The  faculty  by  which  first  truths  are  known  must  have 
been  an  original  endowment  of  the  human  mind.  How  it  was 
trained  is  a  question  for  psychology,  not  for  theology.  But 
we  note — 

(d)  That  development  of  intellect  and  conscience  is  marked 
by  a  wider  apprehension  and  deeper  appreciation  of  first 
truths  is  a  fact  that  strengthens  their  authority.  So  far  from 
indicating  that  they  were  framed  through  a  factitious  associa- 
tion of  ideas  while  man  was  in  a  savage  state,  it  goes  to  show 
that  they  are  verities,  late  it  may  be,  like  many  of  nature's 
simplest  and  highest  laws,  in  coming  to  full  light,  and  perhaps 
at   first   accepted   upon  the  authority   of   persons  fittest  to 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES  II 

judge,  but  fitted  to  win  the  rank  of  universal  and  changeless 
convictions,  and  thenceforth  to  be  regulative  of  all  judgments 
within  their  sphere.     Evolution  confirms  their  authority. 

II.    NATURAL    SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE. 

The  student  of  natural  science  is  in  many  cases  disposed 
not  only  to  undermine  the  authority  of  those  first  truths 
which  serve  as  the  philosophical  postulates  of  theism,  but  also 
to  deny  the  doctrines  of  revealed  religion,  in  particular  the 
reality  of  special  creation,  providence,  and  miracle.  He 
objects  to  these  as  contrary  to  the  known  method  of  nature, 
and  supports  his  objection  by  an  attempt  to  trace  the  biblical 
doctrines  through  a  process  of  natural  evolution  to  purely 
natural  sources.  The  detailed  relations  of  natural  science  to 
theology  will  be  considered  under  the  topics  affected.  We 
now  note  in  general — 

1.  The  naturalist  must  not  beg  the  question;  but  to 
reject  Divine  interventions  in  the  order  of  nature  on  the 
ground  that  all  events  are  due  to  purely  natural  causes,  is  to 
take  for  granted  the  very  point  at  issue.  The  issue  must  be 
decided  by  evidence.  We  admit  that  special  creations  and 
miracles  require  the  most  cogeat  proof,  that  science  has  no 
means  by  which  to  detect  the  presence  of  God  in  his  works, 
and  that  it  must  not  announce  his  agency  merely  because 
unable  to  discover  another  agent ;  at  the  same  time,  science 
is  not  competent  to  deny  that  God  has  interposed  until  it  has 
shown  that  purely  natural  agencies  are  capable  of  effecting 
all  that  has  taken  place. 

2.  The  authority  of  natural  science  is  complete  within  its 
sphere ;  but  the  conjectures  of  scientists,  although  entitled 
to  respect,  are  of  no  authority  whatever. 

3.  God  did  not  conceal  in  his  works  a  contradiction  to 


12  RELATIONS   OF  THE  SOURCES 

what  he  would  afterward  declare  in  his  word.  Thus  far, 
each  has  proved  to  be  in  important  particulars  the  interpreter 
of  the  other. 

4.  To  exhibit  a  process  is  not  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
the  process.  A  development  of  Christian  doctrine  can  be 
traced,  because  growth  of  ideas  is  a  law  of  the  human  mind  ; 
but  the  seed-thoughts  may  have  been  planted  by  the  hand  of 
God.  For  example,  Christ  did  not  come  until  the  fullness  of 
times,  but  the  times  could  not  have  produced  Christ.  Again, 
his  teachings  have  been  unfolded  by  human  study ;  but  human 
study  did  not  invent  his  teachings. 

III.    INTUITION    AND    THE    BIBLE. 

If  intuitions  are  a  trustworthy  basis  for  theism,  what  is 
their  authority  in  theology  ?  Various  answers  have  been 
given. 

1.  Schleiermacher,  living  in  an  age  of  unbelief,  and  deny- 
ing the  infallibility  of  Scripture,  found  in  Christian  conscious- 
ness the  source  and  certification  of  Christian  doctrine. 

2.  Not  a  few  members  of  evangelical  churches  in  Ger- 
many, England,  and  America,  revolting  from  certain  orthodox 
teachings,  have  justified  their  protest  by  according  a  qualified 
authority  to  religious  feeling.  "  The  New  Theology,"  so  called, 
insists  that  Christian  consciousness,  progressively  enlightened, 
must  be  accepted  as  the  interpreter  of  the  Bible. 

3.  Conservative  orthodoxy  replies  that  the  alleged  affirma- 
tions of  Christian  consciousness,  or  of  religious  feeling,  are 
not,  properly  speaking,  intuitions,  but  the  ever-changing 
caprices  of  "  The  spirit  of  the  times,"  and  that  to  follow 
them  is  to  subvert,  not  to  interpret  the  Scriptures. 

4.  Mediating  between  these  extremes,  we  may  urge  that 
man  finds  in   his  moral  convictions  a  criterion  to  which  all 


REI^ATIONS  OF  the;  SOURCES  13 

religious  doctrines  are  inevitably  submitted.  But  his  moral 
convictions  constantly  need  rectifying.  Even  admitting  their 
correctness,  we  might  find  the  range  of  their  applicability  no 
wider  than  the  simple  affirmations  at  the  basis  of  theism. 
Although  an  actual  standard  in  theology,  they  are  not  a  safe 
standard.  The  Bible  remains  the  only  trustworthy  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

It  is  evident  that,  if  too  great  reliance  is  placed  on  Chris- 
tian consciousness,  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  impaired ;  if 
too  little,  then  Christian  experience  is  disparaged.  The  fourth 
of  the  foregoing  positions  avoids  both  extremes.  In  seeking 
to  vindicate  it  we  notice  that  the  issue  can  be  more  accu- 
rately defined.  Consciousness  is  the  being  aware  that  one 
thinks,  feels,  or  acts ;  in  one  word,  has  an  experience.  Chris- 
tian consciousness  is  the  being  aware  of  a  Christian  experi- 
ence ;  what  the  Bible  declares  as  truth,  the  Christian  experi- 
ences as  fact.  Hence  the  alleged  "  intuitions,"  or  affirmations 
of  "reason,"  of  "religious  feeling,"  of  "Christian  conscious- 
ness," or  of  "Christian  experience,"  are  but  judgments  formed 
in  each  case  by  comparing  a  proposed  doctrine  with  the 
standard  which  a  man  finds  in  himself.  The  issue  then,  is 
not  between  the  Bible  and  intuitions,  properly  so  called,  but 
between  interpretations  of  the  Bible  and  interpretations  of 
human  nature  and  experience,  or  even  between  inferences 
from  interpretations.  In  order  thoroughly  to  understand  this 
by  no  means  simple  problem,  it  must  be  studied  from  differ- 
ent points  of  view.     We  will  consider  in  turn — 

I.    The  Intrinsic  Worth  of  the  two  Standards. 

A.  In  behalf  of  the  Bible  it  should  be  remarked — 

{a)  That  the  distinctive  beliefs  of  Christendom  concerning 


14  RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES 

God,  the  oniy  beliefs  which  can  there  find  acceptance,  are  un- 
mistakably traceable  to  the  Scriptures.  The  fact  that  we 
owe  to  the  Bible  a  view  of  God  and  his  relations  to  men 
which  human  reason  never  otherwise  reached,  but  cannot  re- 
ject, shows  the  ascendency  of  the  one  over  the  other, 

{b)  That  the  Bible  has  proved  to  be  a  unique  source  of 
knowledge  concerning  God  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an 
express  revelation  for  that  purpose  from  God  himself.  This 
gives  it  higher  authority  than  all  which  only  indirectly  and  in- 
cidentally reveals  God, 

B,  In  behalf  of  the  standard  in  man  himself  we  note 
that— 

{a)  Man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  so  that  any  state- 
ment concerning  God  may  appropriately  be  tested  by  so  much 
of  that  image  as  remains, 

{b)  Man  was  made  for  active  relations  to  God.  All  our 
highest  faculties  may  have  dealings  with  him.  They  need 
adequate  employment,  and  this  need  awakens  appetencies 
which  can  be  satisfied  only  in  God.  Whatever  doctrine, 
therefore,  fails  to  satisfy  these  appetencies  is  spontaneously 
discredited  as  misrepresenting  him. 

{c)  The  New  Testament  recognizes  a  subjective  standard 
in  man.  Paul  traces  his  authority  over  the  Corinthians  to 
his  manifestation  of  the  truth  to  every  man's  conscience, 
not  their  acceptance  of  the  truth  to  the  manifestation  of  his 
authority  (2  Cor,  4  :  2),  The  truth  thus  finds  attestation 
even  in  the  unconverted  (i  Cor.  14  :  24,  25).  Both  Paul 
and  Christ  refused  to  teach  those  in  whom  the  standard  was 
hopelessly  debased  (Matt.  7:6;  John  3:12;  i  Cor.  3  :  i,  2), 
It  is  repeatedly  and  emphatically  stated  that  spiritual  men 
are  especially  qualified  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  judge  spiritual 
things  (Acts   16  :  14;   i  Cor.  2  :  10-16  ;   12  :  3,  8  ;   14  :  29; 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES  1 5 

2  Cor.  4  :  6;  2  Tim.  1:12;  i  John  5  :  10).  Our  Lord  went 
so  far  as  to  say  that  to  have  an  obedient  spirit  was  to  be 
qualified  to  decide  whether  even  his  own  teachings  were  from 
God  (John  7  : 1 7  ;  cf.  1 7  :  7,  8). 

The  authority  of  the  subjective  standard  would  be  unim- 
peachable, if  that  standard  were  unimpaired.  But  sin  has 
marred  the  image  of  God,  so  that  men  have  ascribed  to  their 
deities  their  own  passions  and  vices  (Rom.  i  :  23-25);  the 
ruling  idea  or  appetency  concerning  God,  the  ever-changing 
fashion  in  religious  tastes,  shifts  the  emphasis  with  every 
generation  from  doctrine  to  doctrine,  instead  of  holding  it 
firmly  upon  all  truth  which  corresponds  to  the  moral  nature 
in  man.  The  New  Testament,  on  the  contrary,  is  unfalsified 
by  sin.  Thus  intrinsically  of  highest  authority,  the  Script- 
ures may  claim  a  further  advantage  in  respect  to — 

2.  Ease  and  Accuracy  of  Interpretation. 

The  exegesis  of  many  passages  is  still  unsettled ;  and  yet 
to  understand  the  Bible  is  as  much  easier  than  to  understand 
the  intimations  of  our  nature  concerning  God,  as  to  under- 
stand an  adequate  book  on  any  obscure  subject  is  easier  than 
to  write  the  book.  The  Bible  tells  us  what  is  true  ;  from  the 
Christian  consciousness  we  would  have  yet  to  discover  what 
is  true.  Therefore,  even  if  the  image  of  God  in  man  were 
uninjured,  if  our  religious  faculties  were  normal  and  all 
equally  alert,  the  Bible  would  still  have  the  marked  advantage 
over  the  Christian  consciousness  of  being  more  readily,  more 
exactly,  and  more  fully  comprehended. 

The  sharp  contrast  of  competence  and  disability  thus  far 
recognized  in  Christian  consciousness,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  pre-eminent  authority  of  Scripture,  leave  it  still 
uncertain  what  is  the  actual  value  of  the  standard  found  in 


l6  RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES 

our  mental  and  moral  constitution,  especially  after  its  renewal 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.     This  value  may  be  learned  from — 

3.  The  Historical  Relations  of  the  Bible  and  Christian 
Consciousness. 

A.  As  matter  of  fact,  these  standards  have  proved  to  be 
in  accord.  On  the  one  hand,  the  essential  doctrines  of 
Christianity  are  too  plainly  set  forth  by  Scripture  to  be  in 
doubt.  No  one  questions  whether  the  Bible  teaches  that 
God  is  one  and  all-perfect,  that  man  is  a  sinner,  that  Christ 
is  in  some  sense  divine  and  our  Saviour,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
regenerates  and  sanctifies,  that  the  benefits  of  the  gospel  are 
to  be  secured  through  faith,  and  that  men  are  to  be  judged 
according  to  their  deeds.  But  neither  does  Christian  experi- 
ence ever  fail  to  attest  these  fundamental  teachings. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  to  all  points  on  which  the  meaning 
of  Christian  experience  is  uncertain,  the  exegetes  also  fail  to 
agree.  These  undecided  issues  relate  to  subordinate  facts  of 
the  gospel,  or  to  theories  about  fundamental  facts — the  mat- 
ters upon  which  Christian  denominations  have  divided. 

B.  Again,  an  authoritative  revelation  is  indispensable  in 
practice.  Rationalism  has  never  devised  a  working  religion. 
Men  feel  the  need  of  express  instruction  from  God  himself 
as  to  what  they  should  do  in  his  service. 

Yet,  conversely,  deference  to  Christian  consciousness  has 
led  many  followers  of  Schleiermacher  to  faith  in  the  Bible. 
The  ideas  which  he  attributed  to  the  continuity  of  Christian 
consciousness  were  originally  imparted  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  are  recorded  in  the  word  of  God ;  hence  the 
word  answers  so  satisfactorily  the  questions  raised  by  experi- 
ence as  gradually  to  recover,  among  men  of  evangelical  spirit, 
a  large  part  of  its  proper  authority.     Trust  in  the  affirma 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  SOURCES  17 

£ions  of  religious  feeling  or  Christian  consciousness  seems  to 
mediate  between  rationalism  and  orthodoxy.  At  whichever 
point  its  follower  is  found,  it  may  incline  him  to  the  other. 
Like  a  bridge,  to  borrow  a  figure,  it  leads  toward  the  opposite 
shore. 

C.  History  proves  that  neither  standard  can  be  neglected 
with  impunity.  Exclusive  regard  to  "the  formal  element" 
in  Christianity,  that  is,  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  or  to  a  sup- 
posed authoritative  tradition,  affects  Christianity  as  phari- 
seeism  affected  the  religion  of  Israel.  On  the  other  hand, 
unreserved  deference  to  "the  material  element"  in  Christi- 
anity, that  is,  to  the  new  life  and  its  spiritual  insight,  fosters 
pietistic  heresy,  fanaticism,  and  the  rationalism  of  "  the  inner 
light." 

This  review  of  the  relations  between  the  Bible  and  the 
standard  found  by  the  Christian  in  himself  justifies  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions  : 

{a)  To  deny  the  doctrines  accepted  by  both  exegesis  and 
Christian  consciousness  is  permissible  only  to  the  sceptic 
who  rejects  the  authority  of  both  ;  since  a  believer  in  either 
would  have  to  take  the  absurd  position  that  the  standard  he 
trusts  has  always  and  by  everybody  else  been  misunder- 
stood, 

{b)  It  is  not  absurd  to  contest  those  interpretations  of 
either  the  Bible  or  Christian  experience  which  have  always 
been  in  dispute. 

(c)  If  any  unmistakable  teaching  of  Scripture  fails  to  com- 
mend itself,  the  question  arises  whether  the  protest  of  re- 
ligious feeling  is  normal ;  whether,  indeed,  the  protest  is  not 
due  to  misapprehending  what  the  subjective  standard  teaches. 
In  any  case,  the  plain  sense  of  the  Bible  must  be  accepted. 


l8  RELATIONS  OF  THE   SOURCES 

and  hope  may  be  indulged  that  fuller  insight  into  both 
standards  will  discover  their  real  agreement. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  doctrine  which  is  out  of  accord 
with  our  deepest  convictions,  although  accepted  in  our  creed, 
cannot  hold  a  place  among  those  convictions.  Christian  con- 
sciousness, while  not  a  criterion  of  the  truth  of  doctrines,  is 
a  test  of  their  effectiveness.  It  alone  can  give  force  to  re- 
ligious principle  and  heartiness  to  religious  belief. 

{d)  Hence  an  invaluable  guarantee  for  the  permanence 
and  triumph  of  Christianity  is  found  in  its  self-evidencing 
power.  Hostile  criticism  may  raise  against  the  Bible  doubts 
which  we  do  not  know  how  to  resolve  ;  but  the  church  has 
tested  its  contents  and  found  them  true.  It  was  after  a  large 
religious  experience  that  Paul  was  able  to  write  :  "  I  know 
whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to 
keep  that  which  I  have  committed  to  him  "  (2  Tim.  i  :  12). 

IV,    THE    CHURCH    AND    THE    BIBLE. 

Acknowledging  the  authority  of  an  unbroken  consensus 
between  Scripture  and  Christian  experience,  the  question 
arises  how  the  consensus  is  to  be  ascertained.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  highest  moment.  Unless  we  can  infallibly  know 
what  the  Bible  means,  the  Bible's  infallibility  practically  goes 
for  nothing. 

Romanism  claims  that  the  church  decided  what  Scriptures 
are  canonical,  has  secured  the  safe  transmission  both  of  these 
and  of  apostolic  tradition,  progressively  unfolds  their  mean- 
ing, and  by  the  mouth  of  the  pope  infallibly  pronounces  on  all 
questions  of  faith  and  discipline.  But  neither  Scripture  nor 
history  justifies  the  claim.     On  the  contrary — 

I.  While  it  must  be  conceded  that,  until  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written,  the   teachings  of    Christianity  could  be 


RELATIONS  TO  BRANCHES  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SCIENCE    1 9 

authoritatively  learned  only  from  apostles  or  other  especially 
qualified  men ;  yet  after  the  New  Testament  was  provided, 
it  became  a  fixed  and  unimpeachable  standard  of  final  appeal. 

2.  The  canonicity  of  the  sacred  writings  was  and  is  de- 
termined by  the  best  historical  evidence,  and  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  writings  themselves. 

3.  Although  the  doctrines  fundamental  to  Christianity 
have  always  been  implicitly  if  not  explicitly  accepted ; 
although  express  definition  of  these  doctrines  has  been  se- 
cured only  through  consultation,  and  the  official  teachers  of 
the  church  have  ever  been  the  recognized  expounders  of  its 
faith,  yet  ordination  to  ecclesiastical  office  never  conferred 
ability  to  determine  and  declare  what  are  the  tenets  of  the 
church.  That  common  belief  may  be  readily  ascertained 
from  the  history  of  doctrine.  Creeds  have  expressed  the 
views  of  their  day  ;  sometimes  of  only  a  party  in  their  day. 

Thus,  by  its  unerring  recognition  of  what  the  Bible  pre- 
sents as  the  essentials  of  Christianity,  and  by  the  persuasive 
attestation  to  these  which  its  experience  affords,  "the  church 
of  the  living  God"  becomes  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth  "  (1  Tim.  3:15). 

§  6.   Relations  to    other    Branches    of    Theological 

Science. 

The  place  of  Systematic  Theology  in  a  curriculum  is  not 
fixed  by  its  logical  relations ;  but  a  recognition  of  these 
materially  aids  the  production  of  a  scheme  of  sound  doc- 
trines. All  departments  of  theological  science  are  now  con- 
stantly re-explored,  and  in  certain  of  them  great  progress 
has  recently  been  made.  The  influence  of  this  fact  upon 
Systematic  Theology  cannot  be  inconsiderable. 


40  RELATIONS  TO  BRANCHES  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SCIENCE 

1.  Apologetics  is  better  prepared  than  ever  before  to  justify 
belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  and  the  evidence  for  a  written 
revelation  has  not  been  weakened.  At  the  same  time,  Natural 
Theology  is  more  cautious  about  affirming  doctrines  which 
are  actually  derived  from  the  Bible,  and,  at  most,  corroborated 
by  Nature. 

2.  In  the  department  of  Isagogics,  reinvestigation  of  the 
canon  has  not  displaced  any  one  of  the  sacred  books  ;  the 
Higher  Criticism,  or  determination  of  the  authorship  of 
the  Scriptures  and  the  methods  of  their  composition,  is  fol- 
lowed with  intense  and  widening  interest,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  is  becoming  more  guarded  in  claim  and  more  con- 
servative in  spirit ;  meanwhile  the  Lower  Criticism,  or  settle- 
ment of  the  text,  has  assured  us  that  for  doctrinal  purposes 
it  is  safe  to  consult  any  text  now  in  use. 

3.  Exegesis  finds  in  the  fruits  of  modern  philological  and 
archaeological  research  important  aid  toward  a  scientifically 
exact  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 

4.  Biblical  Theology  is  providing  a  statement  of  the  doc- 
trinal characteristics  of  each  writer,  or  group  of  writers,  to- 
gether with  an  estimate  of  the  correspondences  or  contrasts 
found  in  their  teachings,  and  a  review  of  the  causes  of  the 
same.  Biblical  Theology  thus  warns  Systematic  Theology 
against  a  mistaken  use  of  proof-texts,  recalls  it  from  over- 
bold speculation,  and  guards  it  against  the  tempting  inference 
of  dogma  from  dogma. 

5.  Historical  Theology,  in  exhibiting  the  actual  process  by 
which  doctrines,  true  or  false,  came  into  full  light,  vindicates 
the  importance  of  truth  by  pointing  out  the  effects  of  doc- 
trine upon  life,  of  life  upon  doctrine,  and  shows  the  unmis- 
takable trend  of  controversy  toward  a  defensible  unity  of 
belief.     The  fruit  of  historical  studies,  perhaps  most  impor- 


AIMS  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  21 

tant  to  Systematic  Theology  is  twofold :  a  breadth  of  view 
which  refuses  to  ascribe  any  great  and  lasting  movement  in 
religion  to  error  alone,  combined  with  heedfulness  against 
accepting  as  a  discovery  in  theology  any  notion  which  his- 
tory shows  to  be  a  long  exploded  heresy. 

Quite  in  keeping  with  the  methods  and  aims  of  historical 
studies  in  Christian  doctrine,  the  modern  science  of  Com- 
parative Theology  adds  emphasis  to  the  doctrines  cherished 
by  the  common  faith  of  mankind,  and  reassures  us  of  the 
pre-eminence  of  Christianity. 

6.  Systematic  Theology  may  now  present  in  due  order 
the  doctrines  which  the  Scriptures  yield  to  the  advancing 
insight  of  the  church,  and  which  are  found  to  be  in  accord 
with  the  historic  "analogy  of  faith."  So  long  as  it  is  heed- 
ful of  the  results  reached  by  other ,  methods,  Systematic 
Theology  remains  conservative  in  spirit,  progressive  in 
thought ;  but  without  such  deference,  it  ever  tends  to  force 
upon  conscience  dogmas  unwarranted  by  Scripture,  and  due 
only  to  specious  inference. 

7.  Practical  Theology  teaches  the  art  of  using  Christian 
doctrine  for  the  conversion  and  edification  of  men.  The 
pastoral  office  often  reacts  strongly  on  Systematic  Theology, 
exalting  doctrines  which  can  be  effectively  preached,  and  dis- 
paraging others  without  a  recognition  of  which  all  doctrine 
is  misconceived.  Practical  Theology  has  an  eye  to  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  doctrines,  while  Systematic  Theology 
vindicates  their  interdependence. 

§  7.  Aims  of  Systematic  Theology. 

These  are  either  direct  or  incidental. 

I.    The  direct  aims  of  Systematic  Theology  are — 

{a)  To  gather  from  the  sacred   Scriptures  and  from  all 


22  LIMITATIONS  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 

trustworthy  collateral  sources,  true  views  as  to  God  and  as  to 
man  in  his  relations  to  God. 

{b)  To  present  Christian  doctrine  in  a  logical  system. 
Without  system  there  is  no  science ;  without  science,  no 
thorough  knowledge. 

2.  Incidental  to  constructing  a  scheme  of  doctrines  are — 

(a)  The  establishment  of  a  few  fundamental  principles 
which  will  not  only  aid  in  fixing  the  order  of  the  system,  but 
afford  insight  into  the  doctrines  themselves.  Such  determ- 
inative principles  are  the  scientific  conception  of  law  and  the 
realistic  view  of  human  nature, 

{b)  Acquaintance  with  living  issues,  and  with  the  way  to 
seek  a  decision,  when  a  decision  cannot  yet  be  reached. 

{c)  That  devout  joy  and  deepening  sense  of  responsibility 
which  ought  to  attend  every  advance  in  religious  knowledge. 

§  8.   Limitations  of  Systematic  Theology, 

Systematic  Theology  has  been  run  out  into  so  much  detail 
on  disputed  points,  and  the  detail  so  insisted  upon,  as  to 
provoke  suspicion  about  the  trustworthiness  of  all  its  con- 
clusions. More  careful  discrimination  is  needed  between 
speculation  and  knowledge ;  and  such  a  discrimination  will 
result  in  a  considerable  unloading  of  Systematic  Theology, 
The  limitations  on  human  knowledge  of  divine  things  are 
chiefly  the  following : 

1.  The  impossibility  of  safe  inference  with  regard  to  the 
infinite.  Truth  unmistakably  revealed  in  Scripture  and  cor- 
roborated in  Christian  experience  may  be  too  far  beyond 
comprehension  to  furnish  a  safe  basis  for  speculation.  On 
such  matters  we  may  claim  to  know  only  so  much  as  the 
Bible  explicitly  teaches. 

2.  The  difficulty  of  interpreting  Scripture.     Biblical  The- 


METHODS  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  23 

ology,  in  tracing  the  historical  order  of  revelation,  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  revelation  proceeds  to  a  note- 
worthy extent  under  the  conditions  of  a  human  development 
of  ideas.  It  thus  becomes  in  some  cases  a  grave  problem 
how  to  make  due  allowance  for  the  human  conditions  with- 
out bringing  into  question  the  revealed  truth. 

3.  The  influence  of  "the  spirit  of  the  times."  A  preva- 
lent relish  for  any  given  type  of  doctrine  should  put  the 
student  on  his  guard  against  following  a  passing  fashion  or 
"fad  "  in  theology. 

§  9.  Methods  of  Systematic  Theology. 

The  Analytical  method,  beginning  with  man  either  as  lost 
or  as  saved,  details  the  means  for  his  redemption,  the  history 
of  his  fall,  and  the  revelation  of  God  both  in  these  processes 
and  in  the  work  of  creation. 

The  Christological  method,  finding  in  the  historic  Christ 
the  sum  of  all  truth,  treats  the  facts  concerning  God  and 
man  as  presupposed  by  the  incarnation. 

The  Trinitarian  method,  classifies  doctrines  according  to 
the  offices  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Federalist  method,  states  what  has  taken  place,  and  is 
yet  to  find  place  under  the  alleged  covenants  of  works  and  of 
redemption. 

The  Historical  method,  accepts  the  order  in  which  doc- 
trines were  revealed. 

The  Synthetic  method,  presents  in  turn  the  doctrines  of 
God,  of  man,  of  redemption,  and  of  the  last  things.  Other 
methods  besides  these  have  occasionally  been  employed  ;  but 
the  Synthetic  is  generally  preferred,  and  will  herein  be  fol- 
lowed, on  account  of  its  simplicity,  historical  correctness,  and 
logical  progression. 


24  INSPIRATION 

§  lo.  Inspiration. 
Accepting  the  Bible  as  the  ultimate  standard   in  Christian 
doctrine,  before  adducing  its  lessons  on  other  topics  we  in- 
quire what  it  teaches  concerning  itself, 

I.    DEFINITIONS. 

Inspiration  is  the  conventional  name  for  the  special  influ- 
ences by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  qualified  select  persons  to 
declare  the  mind  of  God  to  man.  This  is  the  general  sense 
of  the  term  ;  but  inspiration  includes  three  offices  : 

1.  Revelation,  or  the  supernatural  impartation  of  truth  to 
the  human  messenger  of  God.  In  a  more  general  sense,  all 
the  works  of  God  are  a  revelation  of  him  to  rational  beings. 

2.  Illumination,  or  insight  conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
into  the  truth,  from  whatever  source  derived. 

3.  Inspiration,  in  a  narrower  sense,  is  divine  guidance  of 
the  messenger  in  delivering  his  message. 

II,    EVIDENCES. 

1,  Claims  to  Revelation  abound  in  Scripture.  Moses  de- 
clared that  he  received  the  law  from  God.  The  prophets 
insisted  that  God  spake  by  their  mouths.  The  apostles,  in- 
cluding Paul  (Acts  9  :  1-17;  Gal.  i  :  11,  12;  2  Cor.  12  : 
I -1 2),  had  personal  acquaintance  with  him  who  was  the  em- 
bodied revelation  of  God.  Jesus  promised  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  would  make  further  revelations  (John  16:  13-15). 
Even  wicked  men  like  Balaam  in  some  cases  received  a  reve- 
lation (Num.  22-24;   I  Kings  13  :  11-22). 

2.  Evidences  of  Illumination  also  are  abundant.  Paul 
assures  spiritual  men  that  the  Holy  Spirit  aids  them  all  in 
some  degree  to  understand  spiritual  things  (i  Cor.  2  :  14,  15  ; 
Eph.  I  :  17,  18) ;  but  he  claims  special  insight  for  himself  and 
certain  co  laborers  (i  Cor.  3:1,2;    12  :  8,  10  ;   14  :  6,  29). 


INSPIRATION  25 

3.  Evidences  of  Inspiration,  in  the  sense  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  control  over  the  announcement  of  the  truth,  are 
partly  direct,  chiefly  inferential : 

{a)  Certain  texts  expressly  claim  that  the  prophets  re- 
ceived divine  aid  in  utterance  (Exod.  4  :  10-12;  Deut.  18  : 
18  ;  Jer.  i  :  6-9) ;  Jesus  promised  that,  when  his  apostles  were 
summoned  before  magistrates,  the  Spirit  would  teach  them 
not  only  what,  but  how  to  speak  (Matt.  10:19,  20)  ;  apostles 
recognized  this  element  in  the  writings  of  prophets  (2  Tim. 
3  :  16  ;  2  Peter  i  :  21),  and  Paul  once  unequivocally  claimed 
it  for  his  own  (i  Cor.  2  :  13). 

ip)  Thought  and  language  are  so  closely  united  that, 
when  utterance  attends  revelation,  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  im- 
parting ideas,  necessarily  confers  more  or  less  ability  to 
express  them.  The  Psalms  were  evidently  composed  under 
a  present  impulse  and  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(c)  When  the  record  was  subsequent  to  the  revelation,  as 
was  the  case  with  almost  the  entire  Bible,  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  that,  inasmuch  as  the  truth  was  revealed  to  prophets 
and  apostles  for  the  very  purpose  of  having  it  published  to 
men,  no  help  required  for  a  safe  delivery  of  the  message 
would  be  withheld. 

The  evidences  above  cited  apply  to  prophets  and  apostles. 
What  claim  does  the  Bible  make  in  behalf  of  writers  who 
were  neither  apostles  nor  prophets  }  Notwithstanding  that 
the  sacred  books  which  have  been  left  to  us  by  non-prophet- 
ical and  non-apostolic  writers  lay  no  direct  claim  to  inspira- 
tion in  any  form,  still  the  Bible  virtually  testifies  in  their 
behalf : 

A.  The  unknown  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  were  be- 
lieved by  the  Jews  to  have  written  under  the  supervision,  and 


26  INSPIRATION 

therefore  with  the  endorsement,  of  prophets.  But  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  objected  to  the  popular  regard  for  the 
entire  old  Testament.  On  the  contrary,  they  expressly  en- 
dorsed the  elder  Scriptures  as  a  whole  (Matt.  5  :  17,  18; 
Luke  24  :  44  ;  John  5  :  39  ;  10:35;  2  Tim.  3  :  16  ;  2  Peter 
I  :  19-21). 

B.  As  to  non-apostolic  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
should  bear  in  mind  that  the  prophecy  of  Joel  and  the 
promise  of  our  Lord  were  fulfilled  at  Pentecost  by  the  be- 
stowal of  the  Spirit's  miraculous  gifts  upon  many  besides 
apostles  (Joel  2  :  28,  29  ;  John  14  :  \6, passim  ;  Acts  2  :  1-18), 
and  that  prophecy  was  a  not  uncommon  gift  during  the 
apostolic  period  (Acts  11  :  27,  28 ;  21  :  4,  9-11  ;  i  Cor.  14). 
It  is  therefore  presumable  that  the  non-apostolic  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  had  all  necessary  supernatural  aid  for 
the  preparation  of  their  momentous  records. 

It  is  an  early  tradition  that  Mark  attended  upon  Peter, 
and  Luke  upon  Paul,  giving  in  their  Gospels  the  substance 
of  the  narrative  which  they  were  used  to  hearing  from  an 
apostle's  lips.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  evidently 
written  under  a  distinctly  Pauline  influence. 

III.    PHENOMENA    OF    INSPIRATION. 

I.  The  effects  produced  by  the  offices  of  inspiration, 
whether  singly  or  combined,  exhibit  the  diversity  which  Paul 
said  was  a  characteristic  of  spiritual  gifts  (i  Cor.  12  :  4-11). 
The  bewildering  ecstasy  that  more  than  once  overpowered 
King  Saul  (i  Sam.  10  :  9-12  ;  19  :  20-24) — a  phenomenon 
not  altogether  unlike  the  gift  of  tongues  as  known  to  the 
Corinthian  Church  (i  Cor.  14  :  2-19)  ;  the  reluctant  but 
conscious  prophecies  of  Balaam  (Num.  23,  24) ;  the  malicious 
yet  unwitting   prediction    of    Caiaphas  (John   1 1  :  49-52) — 


INSPIRATION  27 

anomalous  inspirations  of  bad  men — are  not  more  dissimilar 
to  each  other  and  to  the  results  of  inspiration  in  good  men 
than  are  cases  of  the  latter  kind,  each  to  each.  The  "  mouth 
to  mouth  "  communications  with  Moses  are  expressly  distin- 
guished from  "visions"  and  "dark  speeches"  granted  to 
prophets  (Num.  12  :  5-8).  These,  again,  are  in  broad  con- 
trast with  the  lyrical  effusions  of  piety  in  the  Psalms,  with 
the  gloomy  philosophy  of  Ecclesiastes,  with  the  shrewd, 
satiric,  sometimes  cynical  advice  of  the  Proverbs  (18  :  16; 
23  :  I,  2),  with  the  now  argumentative,  now  impassioned 
epistles  of  Paul,  and  with  the  narrative  portions  of  both 
Testaments.  A  unique  opportunity  for  comparing  the 
various  products  of  inspiration  in  the  case  of  a  single  writer 
is  afforded  by  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Revelation 
of  John. 

2.  The  several  offices  of  revelation,  illumination,  and  in- 
spiration are  not  always  distinguishable,  and,  when  distin- 
guishable, not  always  separate.  This  is  of  special  importance 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  offices  of  Christ  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  apostles  largely  through  illumination — a 
gift  which  they  shared  with  all  spiritual  men.  Revelation 
alone  could  make  known  that  Christ  existed  before  the  incar- 
nation, that  he  created  and  upholds,  that  he  rules  and  will 
judge  the  world  ;  but  repeated  revelations  from  his  own  lips 
failed  to  give  his  most  intimate  disciples  an  idea  of  his  re- 
demptive work.  This  idea  was  attained  at  length,  we  know 
not  how  slowly,  through  illumination,  that  is,  through  insight 
into  earlier  revelations.  The  Holy  Spirit  "  brought  to  re- 
membrance" what  Jesus  had  said  (John  14  :  26),  when  at 
length  the  Master's  words  could  be  dwelt  upon  in  the  light 
of  his  completed  mission. 

Paul  alone  seems  to  owe  to  a  fresh  revelation  his  knowl- 


a8  INSPIRATION 

edge  of  atonement  and  justification  (Gal.  i  :  ii,  12).  And 
not  even  Paul  maintains  a  sharp  distinction  between  revela- 
tion and  illumination,  but  gives  the  name  of  revelation  to  any 
process  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  known  the  truth.  In 
I  Cor.  2  :  7-10,  knowledge  of  the  atonement  is  expressly  at- 
tributed to  revelation;  but  ver.  11-16  immediately  explain 
the  revelation  as  an  illumination,  which  latter  is  indeed  the 
theme  of  almost  the  entire  chapter. 

But  that  illumination  is  nevertheless  distinct  from  revela- 
tion is  proved  by  the  facts  that — 

(a)  Illumination,  or  spiritual-mindedness,  is  proportioned 
to  obedience  and  piety  (Ps.  25:14;  i  ig  :  99  ;  John  7:17; 
8  :  43  ;  I  Cor.  2  :  14-16),  whereas  the  wicked  sometimes  re- 
ceived revelations,  although  ordinarily  these  are  given  but  to 
the  faithful  (John  15  :  15). 

(d)  Neither  prophets  (Zech.  4:5;  Dan.  12  :  8,  9 ;  i  Peter 
I  :  10,  11)  nor  apostles  (Matt.  16  :  21-23  >  John  13-16,  pas- 
sim) always  understood  the  revelations  which  they  received ; 
but  to  confer  understanding  is  precisely  the  function  of  illu- 
mination. 

IV.    DIVINE    AND    HUMAN    ELEMENTS. 

Inquiry  whether  the  Bible  corresponds  to  its  claims  has 
brought  to  light  its  dual  nature.  The  Bible  exhibits  marks 
of  its  dual  origin. 

I.  T/tc  divine  element  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  very 
words  reported  by  a  prophet,  notably  in  the  Decalogue.  It 
may  safely  be  credited  with  the  general  style  of  psalmists, 
prophets,  and  apostles,  at  once  full,  free,  and  elevated,  sober, 
simple,  and  precise.  It  is  certainly  recognizable  in  the  sus- 
tained superiority  of  the  Bible  in  respect  of  contents  over  the 
sacred  literature  of  other  peoples,  especially  over  Jewish  and 


INSPIRATION  29 

Christian  writings  near  its  own  period  ;  in  a  unity  of  concep- 
tion and  aim  which  covers  documents  strongly  individualized 
and  produced  centuries  apart ;  above  all,  in  adequately  pre- 
senting the  matchless  character,  teachings,  and  career  of 
Jesus. 

2.  The  human  element  would  be  taken  for  granted  in  docu- 
ments that  bear  the  names  of  human  writers.     But — 

(a)  It  is  sometimes  avowed  in  such  phrases  as  "  David 
himself  saith  in  the  book  of  Psalms  "  (Luke  20  :  42),  "  the 
book  of  the  words  of  Isaiah  the  prophet "  (Luke  3  :  4),  "  I 
Paul  say  unto  you"  (Gal.  5  :  2),  "we  also  believe,  and  there- 
fore speak"  (2  Cor.  4  :  13),  "I  speak  as  a  man"  (Rom. 
3  :  5),  •'  I  speak  not  after  the  Lord,"  "  I  speak  as  a  fool "  (2 
Cor.  II  :  17,  23). 

(b)  It  acknowledges  human  sources  of  information,  such  as 
the  poetic  book  of  Jasher  (Josh.  10  :  13),  the  royal  records 
cited  by  the  books  of  the  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  Luke's 
"eye-witnesses"  (i  :  2).  These  citations  are  appeals  to  au- 
thority. That  the  Bible  depends  upon  official  records  or  popu- 
lar poetry,  for  none  of  which  inspiration  was  claimed,  does  not 
exclude  the  divine  element  from  the  Book ;  but  it  shows  how 
noteworthy  is  the  human  element  in  its  historical  portions. 

{c)  The  human  element  is  manifest  in  the  rhetorical  style 
peculiar  to  each  writer ;  also  in  the  color  imparted  by  per- 
sonal idiosyncrasy  to  the  contents  of  ancient  hymns  and 
prophecies,  to  apostolic  doctrine,  and  to  the  choice  and  ar- 
rangement of  historical  materials,  notably  in  the  case  of  the 
Gospel  narratives. 

{d)  Characteristics  of  an  Oriental  people  and  a  former  age 
appear  in  the  references  of  the  Old  Testament  to  physical 
phenomena  (Gen.  i  :  7  ;  7  :  1 1  ;  Ps.  50  :  i  ;  93  :  i),  and  to 
movements  of  the  Divine  mind  (Gen.  6  '.6;  Exod.  32  :  14,  cf. 


30 


INSPIRATION 


Num.  23  :  19  ;  also  cf.  i  Sam.  i  5  :  29  with  ver.  35  and  Rom. 
1 1  :  29) ;  in  the  application  of  round  numbers  to  historical 
periods  {e.  g.,  of  forty  years,  Deut.  2:7;  Judg.  3:11; 
5  :  3 1  ;  8  :  28  ;  13:1;  i  Sam.  4:18;  i  Kings  2  :  1 1  ;  1 1  : 
42  ;  2  Chron.  24  :  i) ;  to  armies  and  battles  (2  Chron.  13:3, 
17),  and  to  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord,  which  Matthew  gives 
in  three  divisions,  each  alleged  to  consist  of  just  fourteen 
generations  (Matt,  i  :  17);  in  the  freedom  of  New  Testa- 
ment quotations  from  the  elder  Scriptures  (cf.  Matt.  27  :  9 
with  Zech.  11  :  12,  13  ;  Acts  7  :  16  with  Gen.  23  :  17-20  ; 
33  :  18,  19;  50  :  13;  also  cf.  i  Cor.  10  :  8  with  Num.  25  : 
9;  and  Heb.  10  :  5  with  Ps.  40  :  6);  in  the  familiar  diffi- 
culty of  harmonizing  various  accounts  of  the  sayings  or  acts 
of  Christ ;  in  the  use  of  arguments  which,  however  convincing 
in  their  day,  can  hardly  be  as  effective  now  (Gal.  3  :  16;  4  : 
24-26)  ;  in  the  Oriental  and  antique  hyperbole  which  charac- 
terizes not  a  few  of  our  Lord's  own  precepts  (Matt.  5  : 
39-42  ;  Luke  6  :  30 ;  14  :  12,  13  ;  cf.  John  5:31  with  8  : 
14) ;  finally,  in  the  imperfect  morality  of  the  Old  Testament, 
as  explained  in  a  typical  case  by  Christ  himself  (Matt.  19  : 
3-9),  and  as  rebuked  by  him  when  it  reappeared  in  a  venge- 
ful plan  quite  of  the  old  type,  proposed  by  two  among  his 
own  disciples  (Luke  9  :  54-56 ;  cf.  Ps,  69  :  21-28  with  Luke 
23  :  34)- 

In  attempting  to  distinguish  between  the  divine  and  the 
human  elements  in  Scripture,  reverent  caution  is  imperative. 
It  is  a  grave  error,  on  the  one  hand,  to  attribute  to  express 
dictation  by  the  Holy  Spirit  those  forms  of  conception  and 
statement  which  supplied  the  divine  message  with  a  vehicle 
more  serviceable  in  a  former  age  than  now ;  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  hastily  to  set  down  as  human  errors  statements  which 


INSPIRATION  31 

may  yet  signally  evince  the  care  of  the  All-knowing  Spirit. 
The  one  course  would  furnish  weapons  against  the  Bible ;  the 
other,  would  throw  away  a  weapon  for  its  defense. 

V.  AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

1.  When  we  consider  the  aid  of  every  sort  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  afforded  for  the  writing  of  the  Bible,  the  endorsement 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  our  Lord  and  his  pledge  to  the 
writers  of  the  New,  we  conclude  that,  to  those  who  accept  the 
claims  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  own  behalf,  they  infallibly  ex- 
press what  it  was  the  will  of  God  to  declare  (i  Thess.  2:13). 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  when  we  recognize,  without  being 
able  to  separate,  elements  divine  and  human,  we  see  that  the 
use  of  a  medium  available  for  ancient  peoples  requires  a  his- 
torical and  critical,  because  reverent,  study,  in  order  to  its 
correct  interpretation.  To  distinguish  the  divine  from  the 
human,  the  substance  from  the  form,  is  only  a  matter  of  in- 
terpretation, requires  only  the  approved  canons  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  is  rarely  a  difficult  task. 

VI.  THEORIES    OF    INSPIRATION. 

The  most  important  of  these  are : 

I.  The  Naturalistic,  or  the  theory  of  Intuition;  namely, 
that  God  dwells  in  all  men,  and  reveals  the  truth  to  all  in 
proportion  to  their  character  and  genius.  This  theory  is 
favored  especially  by  pantheists  and  anti-Christian  students 
of  Comparative  Theology. 

Obviously,  this  is  not  the  Bible's  account  of  its  own  in- 
spiration. The  Bible  does  not  admit  that  pagan  teachings 
bring,  like  its  own,  a  divine  endorsement.  It  admits,  how- 
ever, that  the  heathen  have  the  light  of  nature  (Ps.  19  :  1-6; 
Rom.  1:19,  20),  and  allows  us  to  believe  that  they  are  not 


32  INSPIRATION 

altogether  without  supernatural  enlightenment  (Num.  22-24; 
Matt.  2  :  I,  2,  12). 

2.  The  theory  of  Illumination,  or  Partial  Inspiration ; 
namely,  that,  while  God  is  revealed  in  nature,  in  man,  and 
especially  in  Jesus  Christ,  direct  impressions  of  truth  upon 
the  mind  must  be  rejected  as  magical ;  that  illumination,  or 
insight  into  objective  revelation,  is  the  only  form  of  inspira- 
tion ;  and  that,  since  illumination  varies  with  the  enlighten- 
ment and  piety  of  the  person  inspired,  not  only  the  histori- 
cal, but  also  the  moral  and  religious  teachings  of  Scripture 
are  encumbered  with  errors.  This  theory  is  expressed  in  the 
formula :  **  The  Bible  is  not  the  word  of  God,  but  contains 
the  word  of  God." 

It  is  the  theory  of  Broad  Churchmen  and  "  New  Theolo- 
gians "  generally.  In  the  hands  of  some  it  can  hardly  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  theory  of  Intuition,  while  as  held  by  others 
it  claims  almost  entire  inerrancy  for  the  religious  teachings 
of  the  Bible.     In  all  its  forms  it  is  open  to  the  objections  : 

{a)  The  testimony  for  revelation  above  presented  shows 
that  illumination  is  not  the  only  means  by  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  makes  the  truth  known. 

{b)  The  same  testimony  shows  that  knowledge  of  truth  by 
inspired  men  was  not  always  proportioned  to  their  moral  and 
religious  character. 

{c)  Divine  authority  is  often  claimed  by  the  Scriptures, 
and  a  failure  of  it  never  acknowledged  on  matters  that  re- 
quired authoritative  teaching.  In  support  of  this  statement 
we  may  appeal  to  certain  texts  often  quoted  against  it ; 
namely,  i  Cor.  7:25,  40,  in  which  Paul  contrasts  his  own 
spiritually  guided  judgment  (illumination)  with  an  express 
commandment  (revelation)  from  Christ.     But  in  disclaiming 


INSPIRATION  33 

authority  in  this  instance  he  assumes  that,  without  this  dis- 
claimer, his  words  would  be  taken  as  authoritative  (i  Cor.  7  : 
17;  14  :37;  2  Cor.  13  :  3). 

{d)  The  errors  alleged  by  this  theory  have  in  many  cases 
proved  to  be  correct  statements.  At  the  most,  they  are  to 
be  regarded  as  belonging  merely  to  the  form  in  which  the 
truth  was  cast  for  the  people  of  an  ancient  day.  But,  if 
errors  in  form  only,  they  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  errors  at 
all.  Of  this  sort  are  the  statements  that  the  sun  rises,  and 
that  God  repents. 

3.  The  theory  of  Plenary  Inspiration,  namely,  that  the 
writers  of  Scripture  were  held  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  absolute 
accuracy  in  every  respect.     This  theory  has  taken  two  forms : 

A.  Verbal  Inspiratio7i,  according  to  which  every  word  was 
selected  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  even  dictated  through  a 
human  amanuensis.  Once  a  favorite  theory  of  English, 
Scotch,  and  American  theologians,  it  has  now  generally  suc- 
cumbed to  the  convincing  array  of  human  elements  in  Script- 
ure. For  example,  the  style  of  many  books  in  the  Bible  is 
as  characteristic  of  their  several  writers  as  is  the  style  of 
any  secular  author ;  and  to  ascribe  this  fact  to  the  Holy 
Spirit's  selection  of  precisely  the  words  which  the  writer 
would  have  chosen  is  so  violent  a  conjecture,  and  so  mani- 
festly forbidden  by  the  "law  of  parsimony,"  that  the  verbal 
theory  has  naturally  yielded,  with  advocates  of  plenary  in- 
spiration, to — 

B.  The  theory  of  Dynamical  Inspiration;  namely,  that 
the  thought,  not  the  language,  of  the  Bible  was  inspired  ;  or, 
more  broadly  stated,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  enabled  the  writers 
to  declare  the  truth  free  from  error,  while  allowing  them  to 
choose  their  own  methods  of  statement. 


34  INSPIRATION 

Although  thus  capable  of  various  interpretations,  this 
theory  accords  to  the  Bible  full  authority,  and  is  objection- 
able only  in  so  far  as  it  pretends  to  describe  the  process  of 
inspiration,  concerning  which  the  writers  of  the  Scripture 
say  but  little,  and  perhaps  knew  no  more.  Any  attempted 
rationale  of  the  action  of  the  Divine  mind  upon  the  human 
tempts  its  advocate  to  a  violent  treatment  of  the  objections 
which  it  is  certain  to  encounter. 

REMARKS. 

It  is  of  no  small  moment  that  we  should  avoid  the  com- 
mon error  of  attaching  undue  importance  to  the  theories 
about  inspiration.  It  is  a  matter  of  speculative  rather  than 
of  practical  interest.  The  issue  among  Christians  involves 
little  but  inspiration  in  the  narrower  sense.  It  is  admitted 
that  complete  revelation  was  afforded  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  conferred  on  the  apostles  in- 
sight sufficient  to  acquaint  them  with  all  either  they  or  we 
need  to  know  concerning  Christ ;  and  that  such  aid  as  this 
qualified  them  to  tell  what  they  knew. 

If  then,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  had  no  special 
gift  of  inspiration,  we  should  be  in  the  position  of  jurors 
listening  to  witnesses,  the  competence  of  whose  knowledge 
and  the  integrity  of  whose  intentions  were  assured.  Like 
such  witnesses,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  might  fail 
to  agree  in  minor  particulars,  and  as  to  such  particulars  we 
should  not  know,  as  on  any  other  theory  we  do  not  now  know, 
exactly  what  to  believe  ;  but  they  would  still  be  in  agreement 
about  everything  of  highest  moment,  for  it  is  admitted 
that  their  revelations  and  insight  were  adequate  as  to  the 
substance  of  the  gospel.  Such  a  view  has  the  advantage  of 
accounting  for  apparent  discrepancies  without  imperilling  the 


INSPIRATION 


35 


claims  of  the  record,  as  is  the  case  when  the  discrepancies 
have  to  be  reconciled  with  inspiration  in  the  narrow  sense. 
To  claim  too  much  is  to  risk  even  more. 

But,  as  on  many  other  topics,  an  easy  solution  of  difficul- 
ties involves  greater  difficulties.  The  evidence  is  sufficient 
for  inspiration  in  every  sense ;  so  that  while  the  harm  of  re- 
nouncing it  in  the  narrower  sense  ought  not  to  be  exagger- 
ated, we  are  entitled  to  believe  that  the  accuracy  of  the 
writers  was  secured  by  all  necessary  guidance  in  recording 
the  message  of  God  to  man. 


PART    II 

THEOLOGY    PROPER 

§   II.     The  Existence  of  God. 

Present  State  of  the   Theistic  Argument. 

Since  Hume  led  the  empirical  philosophy  into  thorough- 
going scepticism,  and  the  critical  method  induced  Kant  to 
discard  all  testimony  to  the  existence  of  God  but  that  of 
conscience,  the  standard  arguments  for  his  existence,  without 
exception,  have  been  persistently  and  unsparingly  attacked 
not  only  by  opponents,  but  also  by  defenders  of  theism. 

Some  theists  renounce  the  possibility  of  demonstrating  that 
there  is  a  God,  but  assume  it  as  a  first  truth.  That  is,  they 
hold  that  God  can  be  known  at  first  hand  as  an  object  of 
rational  intuition,  as  a  logical  prms  of  all  other  knowledge. 
Thus  he  may  be  intuited  as  infinite  Being  correlative  to  finite ; 
as  absolute  Being  correlative  to  dependent ;  as  creative 
Reason  guaranteeing  the  veracity  of  human  reason ;  and  as 
a  holy  Law-giver,  recognized  in  the  very  idea  of  law.  The 
position  thus  taken  is  open  to  the  objections  that — 

(a)  First  truths  are  self-evident ;  but  self-evident  ideas  are 
insusceptible  of  analysis,  or  of  demonstration  by  any  logi- 
cally prior  idea.  The  idea  of  God,  on  the  contrary,  is  highly 
complex.  It  can  be  resolved  into  its  elements  ;  these  can  be 
separately  tested  ;  when  tested,  they  must  be  proved  capable  of 
synthesis  ;  and  when  harmoniously  synthetized,  they  must  be 
shown  to  stand  for  a  Being  that  exists.  The  existence  of  God 
may  be  inferable  from  intuitions,  but  is  not  itself  intuited. 
36 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  37 

{b)  The  authority  of  a  rational  intuition,  or  logical  priority 
to  all  other  knowledge,  can  be  claimed  only  for  those  general 
principles,  the  truth  of  which  is  assumed  in  all  particular 
cases  ;  e.  g.,  that  a  particular  act  is  wrong  involves  the  gen- 
eral truth  that  there  is  difference  between  right  and  wrong. 
Now  the  existence  of  God  is  not  a  general  principle  to  be 
intuited,  but  a  particular  fact  to  be  proved. 

{c)  Knowledge  of  an  object  may  logically  involve  the  idea 
without  involving  the  existence  of  another  object.  The 
existence  of  the  second  object  is  logically  inferable  only 
when  the  first  is  known  to  be  in  nature  inseparable  from  the 
second.  For  example,  knowledge  of  an  object  limited  in  ex- 
tension logically  involves  the  idea,  but  not  the  occupancy,  of 
unlimited  extension.  On  the  other  hand,  an  object  limited 
in  duration  certifies  the  existence  of  some  being  unlimited  in 
duration  to  which  its  own  existence  is  due  ;  but  it  remains  to 
be  proved  that  the  universe  is  not  that  eternal,  self-existent, 
absolute  being. 

(d)  Knowledge  of  the  Divine  existence  rests  upon  the  very 
ideas  which  it  is  said  to  support.  For  example,  the  trust- 
worthiness of  human  logic  is  already  taken  for  granted  when 
it  is  argued  that  this  trustworthiness  requires  the  existence 
of  creative  Reason  as  its  own  logical  prius.  Or,  if  it  be 
replied  that  the  existence  of  God  is  a  first  truth,  not  a  fact 
assured  by  argument,  then  the  competence  of  the  human 
mind  to  know  first  truth  intuitively  is  already  assumed  in  one 
case ;  but  if  in  one  case,  why  not  in  all  cases .-'  Again,  if  the 
idea  of  right  and  duty  is  not  intrinsically  valid,  it  cannot  be 
known  that  right  is  real  in  the  case  of  God,  or  duty  an  actuality 
when  imposed  by  his  will. 

In  other  words,  to  urge  that  the  validity  of  human  reason 
and  the  reality  of  moral  distinctions  require  the  idea  of  God 

P 


38  THE   EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

as  a  first  truth  for  their  support  is  to  say  that  first  truth 
must  lie  back  of  first  truth — a  contradiction  of  terms. 
Knowledge  of  the  Divine  existence,  therefore,  instead  of 
being  logically  prior,  is  logically  sequent  to  our  valid  primary 
beliefs. 

Although  the  protracted  debate  has  not  yet  secured  agree-  j 
ment  among  theists   concerning  the  relative  worth  of  the  '■ 
standard  arguments,  yet  certain  important  results  are  becom- 
ing manifest.     Among  these  may  be  mentioned  : 

{(i)  Since  it  is  the  business  of  philosophy  to  account  for 
the  hold  of  primary  beliefs  upon  the  mind,  reaction  has  set  in 
against  the  negative,  and  therefore  inadequate,  results  of  the 
old  empirical  philosophy  and  of  its  modern  kindred.  Posi- 
tivism. 

{b)  Evolutionism,  whether  or  not  true  as  a  universal  phi- 
losophy, is  synthetic  and  constructive,  not  analytic  and 
destructive.  It  deals  with  processes,  not  with  origins  ;  for 
that  alone  can  be  unfolded  which  is  already  enfolded.  It  is 
now  plain  that  Evolutionism  need  not,  and  cannot,  under- 
mine faith  in  God  as  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  world. 

ic)  Until  recently  the  influence  of  Kant  had  won  for  the 
moral  argument  exceptional  favor.  Of  late,  sounder  theories 
of  knowledge  and  of  causation,  together  with  the  ever-widen- 
ing discovery  of  order  and  adaptation  in  the  world,  have 
secured  a  restatement  and  a  renewed  confidence  in  the  argu- 
ments from  nature.     But  it  is  still  sometimes  objected  that — 

{d)  The  infinite  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  finite.  It  is 
enough  to  reply  that  the  infinite  in  duration,  at  least,  must 
be  taken  for  granted.  It  is  certain  that  something  has  ex- 
isted from  eternity,  and  the  arguments  from  nature  need  only 
show,  to  begin  with,  that  the  universe  itself  cannot  have  been 


THE   EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 


39 


eternal.  If  it  is  proved  that  some  other  being  than  the  uni- 
verse is  from  eternity,  the  theistic  argument  has  gained  a 
firm  foothold. 

(e)  The  limits  of  criticism  having  apparently  been  reached, 
the  standard  arguments,  with  a  single  exception  to  be 
presently  noted,  find  their  data  extended  and  their  conclu- 
sions limited,  but  complementary  and  confirmed. 

I.    THE    COSMOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT. 

This  name  has  been  conventionally  adopted,  because  the 
argument  accounts  for  the  cosmos,  or  universe.  It  is  more 
strictly  etiological  or  causal,  an  argument  from  the  contin- 
gency of  phenomena  to  a  First  Cause.  The  argument  takes 
one  of  two  forms,  physical  or  metaphysical,  according  as  it 
relies  upon  analysis  of  physical  facts,  or  interprets  them  by 
the  metaphysical  notion  of  causation,  or  efficient  force. 

I .    The  Physical  P  \a^i . 

In  this  forrr  ':he  argument  makes  use  of  but  two  indisput- 
able facts  in  nature  ;  namely,  matter  and  motion. 

It  is  certain  that  something  has  existed  from  eternity. 
But  matter  cannot  have  been  eternally  existent,  because — 

A.  The  present  state  of  the  material  universe  is  a  product 
of  evolution  from  simplicity  to  complexity.  The  process  may 
as  certainly  be  traced  back  from  complexity  to  sifnplicity.  But 
absolute  simplicity  excludes  antecedent  change,  for  any 
change  would  be  a  step  in  the  development  which  has  taken 
place.  And  since  it  is  an  axiom  of  physics  that  matter  in  a 
state  of  quietude  cannot  spontaneously  move,  we  have 
reached  a  point  when  a  Being  independent  of  the  universe 
initiates  its  processes.  Thus,  if  the  supposition  of  matter  in 
a  state  of  absolute  simplicity  were  admissible  we  should  now 


40  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

have  found  in  the  beginner  of  cosmic  motion  the  self-moved 
Architect  of  materials  already  in  existence. 

But  the  materials  of  the  universe  can  never  have  been 
in  a  state  of  absolute  simplicity  before  which  there  was  no 
motion.  Whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  constitution  of 
matter,  it  is  certain  that  extension  is  one  of  its  essential 
properties,  and  that  extension  is  proportioned  to  density. 
But  any  degree  of  density  or  tenuity  which  has  ever  belonged 
to  any  one  of  the  great  masses  or  systems  of  matter  now  in 
existence,  was  a  result  of  those  "  stresses  "  in  opposite  di- 
rections which  are  usually  called,  on  the  one  hand,  the  "  at- 
tractions "  of  gravitation  and  cohesion;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  molecular  or  intra-molar  "repulsion"  of  heat.  Matter, 
therefore,  without  active  properties  would  be  without  proper 
ties  essential  to  its  existence.  Rigorous  physical  analysis  leads 
to  no  possible  state  of  things  prior  to  the  one  which  the  first 
motion  in  the  universe  produced,  but  plainly  teaches  that, 
before  that  moment,  the  universe  could  not  have  existed. 
The  absolute  beginning  of  motion  was  the  absolute  begin- 
ning of  matter.     The  Architect  was  the  Creator.^ 

B.  Measurable  changes  admit  only  measurable  time.  A 
series  of  such  changes  from  eternity  ought  already  to  have 
reached  any  assignable  stage.     In  other  words,  in  an  eternal 

1  It  is  generally  regarded  as  settled  that  all  bodies  are  made  up  of  molecules 
with  intermolecular  spaces  (Cooke,  "The  New  Chemistry,"  p.  37  f;  Clerk  Max- 
well on  Constitution  of  Bodies,  in  "  Encyclopsedia  Britannica").  According  to 
the  prevailing  theory  of  atoms,  the  properties  of  different  substances  are  due  to 
their  different  atomic  motions  (Art.  Atoms,  by  Clerk  Maxwell,  in  "  Encyclopedia 
Britannica";  Stallo,  "  Concepts  of  Modem  Physics,"  p.  28).  Clerk  Maxwell  de- 
clares the  existence  of  atoms  or  molecules  prior  to  motion  "  sheer  delusion ' ' 
("  Matter  and  Motion,"  p.  156,  note).  But  appeal  is  not  made  to  these  doctrines 
of  modem  physics,  because  they  are  more  or  less  speculative ;  whereas,  the  data 
on  which  the  argument  in  the  text  is  based  seem  to  be  beyond  question. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  41 

series  of  changes  every  moment  is  the  wrong  moment  for  any 
given  change.  The  idea  of  such  a  series  is  therefore  self- 
contradictory,  and  the  universe,  because  it  is  changing,  can- 
not be  the  result  of  an  eternal  process.  To  deny  this  is  but 
to  affirm  that  finite  duration  is  infinite  duration,  since  the 
ratio  between  changes  and  time  is  indissoluble. 

But,  as  matter,  because  it  is  mutable,  cannot  be  eternal,  so 
the  Creator,  because  he  is  eternal,  cannot  be  either  mutable 
or  material.  From  the  point  of  view  of  physics  we  are  shut 
up  to  belief  in  a  self-existent,  spiritual  Creator, 

These  conclusions  are  not  avoided  by  substituting  an  infi- 
nite succession  of  cycles  for  an  unbroken  progress  from  eter- 
nity.    Because — 

A,  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  any  cycle  which  was 
said  of  any  given  stage  in  a  progressive  development  from 
eternity  ;  namely,  it  ought  to  have  been  reached  long  ago, 
and  all  eternity  does  not  furnish  the  right  time  for  it. 

B.  Cosmic  changes  involve  enormous  and  ceaseless  dissipa- 
tion of  energy  in  the  form  of  heat.  This  fact  encumbers 
the  theory  of  an  eternal  series  of  cycles  with  the  following 
difficulties  : 

{a)  Each  cycle  begins  with  an  immensely  greater  evolu- 
tion of  heat  than  that  with  which  it  passes  into  the  cycle 
next  following  ;  therefore,  its  primeval  nebula  is  correspond- 
ingly expanded,  and  its  history  lengthened  in  the  same  ratio. 
It  follows  that,  an  eternity  ago,  some  cycle  must  have  been 
eternally  long,  hence  is  not  ended  yet.  The  theory  of  an 
infinite  series  of  cycles  is  therefore  self-contradictory,  and 
resolves  into  the  theory  of  uninterrupted  development, 
already  discussed, 

{b)  Ceaseless  dissipation  of  energy  from  eternity  wouM 


42  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

require  an  infinite  store  of  potential  energy  in  the  past.     But 
an  infinite  store  of  energy  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that — 

An  exhaustion  of  energy  is  impending,  upon  which  the 
solar  system,  for  instance,  will  become  an  inert  mass.  But 
the  infinite  is  inexhaustible,  A  process  from  eternity  must 
endure  unto  eternity. 

2.    The  Metaphysical  Phase.  , 

Every  change  must  have  a  cause ;  but  the  only  real  cause 
is  a  first  cause ;  therefore,  the  ever-changing  universe  must 
have  had  a  First  Cause. 

Furthermore,  the  idea  of  causation  arises  in  the  mind 
upon  the  exercise  of  will.  We  have  a  conception  of  cause 
only  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that,  in  forming  volitions,  we  our- 
selves are  consciously  causes.  The  First  Cause  must  there- 
fore be  conceived  by  us  to  be  a  Will,  that  is,  a  Person. 

(i)  Questions  arise  as  to  the  scope  of  this  argument. 

A.  Does  the  origination  of  force  involve  the  origination 
of  matter  ? 

Yes,  because  all  properties  of  matter  which  give  evidence 
that  it  does,  ever  did,  or  ever  could  exist,  are  due  to  force. 
For  example,  integration,  or  the  production  of  mass,  density, 
and  form,  is  by  energy  ;  so  are  texture,  temperature,  and  color. 

B,  Since  all  forces  are  convertible  into  each  other,  while 
the  sum  of  force  is  never  increased,  does  it  not  follow  that 
all  the  operations  of  nature  are  continuous  manifestations  of 
an  originating  divine  energy  } 

No,  because  physical  and  mental  states  or  acts  are  not 
mutually  convertible.  Volition  releases,  but  does  not  pass 
into,  muscular  energy  ;  while  impact  upon  the  body  awakens, 
but  does  not  pass  into,  thought.  Cause  and  force,  then,  are 
not    equivalent    terms.       The   former   includes    the    latter. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  43 

Causation  occurs  in  the  realms  of  both  mind  and  matter ; 
force  belongs  only  to  physical  objects. 

(2)  Metaphysical  and  psychological  objections  may  be 
raised  against  this  phase  of  the  argument : 

A.  It  seems  to  make  God  changeable.  If  the  mutability 
of  matter  forbids  us  to  consider  it  eternal,  the  immutability 
of  the  eternal  Spirit  forbids  us  to  regard  him  as  the  Creator, 
since  creation  would  be  a  change  both  for  him  and  in  him. 
We  reply — 

(ci)  We  may  consistently  refer  the  beginning  of  temporal 
events  to  a  Being  who  alone  is  able  to  institute  those  events, 
without  pretending  to  explain  what  took  place  in  the  eternal 
mind  before  time  began. 

{b)  A  posteriori  conclusions  are  as  valid  against  a  priori 
deductions  in  theology  as  in  natural  science,  if  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  as  when  we  aeal  with  the  Infinite,  the 
a  priori  method  is  obviously  inapplicable. 

{c)  The  divine  Spirit  might  be  active  from  eternity  to 
eternity  and  yet  undergo  no  change.  This  will  be  shown 
when  the  spirituality  of  God  is  considered. 

B.  No  motive  can  be  imagined  for  selecting  any  moment 
for  the  creative  act.  It  is  as  difificult  to  conceive  the  divine 
Spirit,  after  the  lapse  of  an  eternity,  and  subject  to  no  im- 
pulse from  without,  determining  to  create  the  world  at  any 
given  moment,  as  to  conceive  of  an  infinite  succession  of 
finite  phenomena.     We  reply — 

id)  It  is  not  merely  difficult  but  impossible  to  conceive  of 
any  real  cause  which  is  not  a  first  cause. 

{b)  While  matter  cannot  conceivably  find  the  cause  of  its 
first  movement  in  itself,  the  infinite  Mind  cannot  conceivably 
find  a  determining  motive  outside  itself.     In  other  words,  the 


44  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

supposition  of  a  self-moved,  spiritual  Creator  is  psychologi- 
cally consistent,  but  the  opposite  supposition  is  unthinkable, 

C.  The  validity  of  our  idea  of  cause  is  denied  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  a  habit,  not  a  necessity  of  thought ;  that  ex- 
perience gives  us  only  phenomenal  succession,  and  that  our 
notion  of  cause  or  force  is  derived  from  fancying  our  own 
will  to  be  an  originating  cause,  a  producer  of  force.  This 
purely  empirical  but  thorough-going  objection  may  be  met 
by  the  following  considerations. 

{a)  Whatever  the  origin  of  the  idea  of  causation  may  be, 
it  is  now  impossible  to  think  the  contrary  of  that  idea,  that 
is,  to  reduce  cause  and  effect  to  a  succession  of  phenomena 
unproducing  and  unproduced.  We  are  compelled  to  accept 
the  causal  judgment  as  valid. 

{b)  No  fact  in  experience  is  more  certain  than  that  in  the 
process  of  forming  a  volition,  every  person,  whatever  be  the 
range  of  motives  which  he  is  capable  of  taking  into  account, 
is  self-determined.  We  know  that  we  "create"  our  own 
volitions. 

{c)  Although  volition  does  not  originate  but  only  releases 
physical  energy,  it  is  equally  certain  that  volition  absolutely 
causes  the  release.  How  this  effort  of  the  will  escapes  being 
the  creation  of  a  releasing  force  we  cannot  understand  ;  but 
its  analogy  to  creation  of  force  justifies  ascribing  the  creation 
of  force  to  that  Being  whom  the  necessity  for  a  real  cause 
obliges  us  to  accept  as  the  First  Cause. 

Uniting  the  results  afforded  by  both  phases  of  the  cosmo- 
logical  argument,  we  find  that  the  phenomena  of  the  physical 
universe  and  the  laws  of  the  human  mind  substantiate  the 
belief  that  a  self-existent,  personal  Spirit  is  the  Creator  of 
all.     Whether  we  may  call  him  God  remains  for  other  forms 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  45 

of  the  theistic  arguments  to  show.     It  is  enough  if  they  find 
a  firm  basis  laid  for  them  in  the  etiology  of  the  cosmos. 

II.    THE    EUTAXIOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT. 

The  argument  from  order  has  but  lately  received  a  dis- 
tinctive name.  Independent  treatment  of  the  argument  is 
also  of  comparatively  recent  date.  It  has  usually  been  re- 
garded as  part  of  the  teleological  argument. 

Uniform  order  in  any  sphere  is  a  mark  of  controlling  in- 
telligence. Th6  universe  is  pervaded  by  laws  which  only 
extreme  rigor  and  refinement  of  intellectual  processes  can 
ascertain  and  state,  and  thus  discloses  an  Intelligence  to 
human  conception  infinite.  How  widely  order,  or  law,  pre- 
vails may  be  gathered  from  the  facts  : 

(a)  All  living  things  may  be  classified  under  various  types ; 
while  the  production  of  these  classes  in,  upon  the  whole,  an 
ascending  series  exhibits  an  order  inclusive  of  all  organisms. 

(b)  It  is  yet  more  remarkable  \}c\3X  the  highest  physical  laws 
tnay  be  reduced  to  mathematical  formulas.  This  is  the  case, 
for  example,  with  celestial  and  terrestrial  mechanics,  with  the 
laws  of  heat  and  electricity,  light  and  sound,  even  to  some 
extent  with  chemistry,  botany,  and  zoology.  These  formulas 
are  not  the  fruit  of  observation,  but  of  the  strictest  processes 
of  abstract  reasoning.  They  signalize  the  correspondence  of 
the  order  of  nature  with  the  order  of  thought.  What  the 
laws  of  mind  require  us  to  ascribe  to  matter  is  found  to  be 
true  of  matter. 

Such  a  correspondence  of  thought  to  things  needs  no 
explanation  on  any  theory  of  monism.  If  materialism  is 
true,  then  the  laws  of  matter  include  the  laws  of  what  is 
called  mind ;  or,  if  idealism  is  true,  then  the  laws  of  mind 


46  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

are  those  also  of  what  passes  for  matter.  But  on  the  theory 
of  dualism  the  only  possible  explanation  is  that  matter  and 
mind  have  a  common  origin. 

Nevertheless,  the  eutaxiological  argument  is  a  heavy  blow 
at  materialism.  It  compels  this  philosophy  to  testify  against 
itself.  Materialism  might  account  for  the  accord  between 
the  two  realms  of  matter  and  mind ;  but  how  could  it  account 
for  the  two  realms }  Attributing  all  phenomena,  even  the 
human  mind,  to  evolution  from  a  primordial  nebula,  material- 
ism forbids  us  to  ascribe  to  an  originating  Mind  those  orderly 
processes  which,  it  declares,  have  produced  finite  minds. 
But  if  organism  could  produce  mind,  the  original  capabilities 
of  matter  would  all  the  more  need  accounting  for. 

Furthermore,  atomic  properties,  however  potent,  would  be 
without  effect  unless  the  atoms  were  fitly  combined.  The 
primal  combination  must  have  provided  for  every  detail  at 
every  instant  since  time  began.  Any  slip  in  the  process 
might  have  wrecked  the  whole  scheme  of  nature.  Whence 
the  original  collocation  competent  to  secure  cosmos  instead 
of  chaos  ?  It  could  not  be  by  chance;  it  must  have  been  by 
Intelligence. 

The  relations  of  the  argument  from  contingency  and  the 
argument  from  order  are  noteworthy  and  important. 
'^      (i)  Eiitaxiology  supports  etiology : 

(a)  In  the  metaphysical  form  of  the  cosmological  argu- 
ment. This  argument  ascribes  the  universe  to  a  creative 
Will  on  the  ground  that  causation  is  conceived  of  only 
through  the  exercise  of  volition.  But  this  is  to  assume 
that  what  is  necessary  in  thought  is  necessary  in  nature. 
The  argument  from  order  justifies  this  assumption  by 
showing   that   the   highest   inductions   of    physical   science 


THE   EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  47 

are  expressed   in  the  purely  mental  deductions  of   mathe- 
matics. 

[b)  In  the  physical  form  of  the  cosmological  argument. 
The  order  or  law  which  characterizes  any  object  is  due  to  its 
qualities.  But  its  qualities  are  grounded  in  its  constitution  ; 
and,  since  things  without  constitution  do  not  and  cannot  ex- 
ist, therefore,  to  confer  upon  things  their  constitution,  quali- 
ties, and  order,  is  to  create  them. 

(2)  Etiology  supports  eutaxiology  : 

The  argument  which  ascribes  the  universe  to  a  personal 
Will  prepares  us  for  evidences  of  Intelligence.  Volition 
itself  includes  foresight  of  ends. 

(3)  While  both  arguments  lead  back  to  creation,  they  dijfer 
in  basis.  The  argument  for  creative  Will  appeals  to  the 
element  of  change  in  nature ;  the  argument  for  creative 
Intelligence  appeals  to  the  element  of  fixity — the  one  to  the 
fact  of  motion,  the  other  to  the  fact  of  law. 

(4)  Furthermore,  the  will  and  the  intelligence  thus  far 
testified  to  by  nature,  tmite  to  form  purpose,  and  thus  lay  a 
foundation  for — 

III.    THE    TELEOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT. 

This  argument  finds  evidences  of  a  Designer  in  the  num- 
berless adaptations  in  nature  to  rational  ends. 

But  the  conclusiveness  of  the  argument  has  been  denied 
on  various  grounds  : 

(i)  That  adaptations  indicate  the  existence,  not  of  God, 
but  only  of  a  demiurge,  whose  ability,  though  large  enough 
for  the  purposes  actually  achieved,  is  infinitely  short  of  infi- 
nite.    And  this  because — 

(A)  Infinite  power  would  not  employ  adaptations,  or  means, 
but  would  go  straight  to  its  ends. 


48  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

(B)  The  abilities  of  the  Designer  have  not  sufficed  to  pre- 
vent the  intrusion  of  evil  in  the  world. 

We  reply  that — 

(a)  In  a  scheme  of  finite  objects,  on  no  matter  how  vast 
a  scale,  adaptation  of  means  to  ends  is  indispensable,  and 
plainly  indicative  of  intelligent  purpose. 

(d)  We  do  not  ask  from  the  teleological  argument  evi- 
dences of  infinite,  but  only  of  immense,  power  and  wisdom. 
An  inductive  argument  is  limited  by  its  nature  to  less  than 
an  infinite  number  of  data,  and  its  conclusion  must  be  cor- 
respondingly limited.     Nevertheless — 

(c)  The  exhibition  of  wisdom  and  power  by  the  uni- 
verse is  so  varied  and  so  vast  as  to  justify  the  positions 
that— 

(aa)  The  destructive  processes  of  nature  do  not  indicate 
any  deficiency  in  the  Designer,  but  prove  the  incomprehensi- 
bility of  his  design, 

(dd)  Whether  the  universe  is  boundless  or  not,  the  re- 
sources of  its  Designer  are  without  known  limit.  The  data 
which  the  teleologist  adduces  prepare  us  at  least  to  accept 
testimony  from  some  other  quarter  that  the  skill  competent 
for  all  things  actual  is  equal  to  all  things  possible. 

(2)  Adaptation  to  rational  ends  is  known  to  zm/>/y  design 
only  in  the  case  of  artificial  objects ;  but  since  we  do  not 
know  that  the  world  was  made,  it  is  unwarrantable  to  infer 
that  it  was  designed. 

The  answer  to  this  objection  varies  with  the  position 
claimed  for  the  teleological  argument. 

{a)  If  the  arguments  from  contingency  and  order  are 
either  or  both  accepted,  then  the  world  is  to  be  regarded  as 
a  manufactured  article ;  and,  as  such,  not  only  warrants,  but 
requires  us  to  construe  its  adaptations  to  ends,  however  ob- 


THE   EXISTENCE   OF  GOD  49 

fCure,  as  evidences  of  design.  Final  cause  must  be  ascribed 
to  personal  cause. 

{b)  If  an  independent  position  is  sought  for  the  argument, 
it  then  becomes  an  estimate  of  probabilities.  This,  how- 
ever, does  not  seriously,  if  even  perceptibly,  weaken  its  force. 
Modern  jurisprudence  teaches  that  the  most  conclusive  testi- 
mony as  to  events  can  claim  only  a  higher  or  lower  degree  of 
probability ;  and  yet  events  may  be  proved  beyond  reasonable 
doubt.  And  so  the  teleological  argument  legitimately  im- 
parts to  most  minds  a  firm  assurance  that  the  numberless 
interdependences  in  nature,  complex  yet  congruous,  cannot 
be  accidental,  but  are  due  to  Divine  forethought  and  control. 

(3)  Not  a  few  evolutionists,  regarding  adaptations  in  nature 
as  the  fruit  of  a  purely  natural  process  due  to  the  properties 
of  matter,  refuse  to  see  in  them  any  indication  of  design. 
Other  advocates  of  evolution  admit  that  rational  adaptations, 
whatever  the  process  through  which  they  arise,  are  unequiv- 
ocally significant  of  purpose  and  plan. 

From  this  point  of  view  Janet's  analysis  is  ingenious  and 
impressive.     For  the  most  part  following  Janet,  we  observe  : 

When  a  coincidence  of  phenomena  constantly  recurs,  ex- 
planation is  needed,  not  only  of  the  phenomena,  but  of  the 
coincidence.  When  such  a  coincidence  tends  regularly  to- 
ward a  distinct  end,  the  end  must  be  regarded  as  ideally 
present  in  the  production  of  the  coincidence  ;  that  is,  the  co- 
incidence is  for  the  sake  of  the  end,  and  finality  is  a  law  of 
nature.  This  being  admitted,  the  question  arises  whether 
finality  is  immanent  or  transcendent,  whether  nature  is  self- 
led,  after  the  analogy  of  automatic  nerve-action  and  of  in- 
stinct, or  follows  the  design  of  an  intelligent  Will  which  is 
above  nature.     It  may  be  answered  : 

(«)  That  immanent  finality  does  not  exclude  transcendent 

E 


50  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

finality,  while  transcendent  would  naturally  include  immanent. 
An  intelligent  contriver,  if  he  could,  would  fit  his  invention 
to  work  out  his  plan. 

{b)  To  ascribe  to  nature  automatic  choice,  or  even  instinct, 
is  to  state  the  problem,  not  to  solve  it.  Intelligent  purpose 
alone  can  explain  the  convergence  of  natural  processes  on  a 
vast  scale  toward  rational  ends. 

In  a  word,  modern  science  may  change  our  conception  of 
the  method  of  nature,  but  in  so  doing  affords  the  more  mul- 
tiform and  impressive  evidence  of  controlling  design.  The 
present  tendency  of  theistic  evolutionists  is  very  marked  to- 
ward ascribing  the  entire  course  of  nature  to  the  constant, 
rather  than  to  a  merely  original,  activity  of  God. 

IV.    THE    ONTOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT. 

This  is  a  deduction  of  the  existence  of  God  from  the  idea 
of  him  as  perfect  or  as  necessary.  The  following  are  typical 
forms  of  the  argument : 

I.  From  the  Idea  of  Petfection. 

A.  Anselm  argued  that  we  have  the  idea  of  a  Being  than 
whom  a  more  perfect  cannot  exist.  But  unless  we  have  an 
idea  of  him  as  existing,  then  we  can  have  an  idea  of  a  Being 
more  perfect  than  he.  We  are  therefore  compelled  to  think 
of  the  all-perfect  Being  as  existing. 

B.  Descartes  held  that  not  mere  existence,  but  necessary 
existence,  is  a  perfection,  and  the  argument  as  thus  amended 
he  accepted.  But  he  used  an  argument  drawn  from  his  own 
postulate  that  the  existence  of  God  must  be  assumed  as  a 
guarantee  of  human  reason  :  our  conception  of  an  all-perfect 
Being  is  innate,  and  could  be  implanted  only  by  such  a  Being. 

Every  argument  drawn  from  the  idea  of  perfection  is  re- 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  51 

ducible  to  the  identical  proposition  that,  if  we  think  of  an  all- 
perfect  Being  at  all,  we  must  think  of  him  as  possessing  every 
perfection ;  that  is,  if  God  exists,  he  is  self-existent.  It  con- 
founds a  definition  with  a  demonstration. 

2.  From  the  Idea  of  Necessary  Existence. 

A.  Cudworth  rejected  all  the  earlier  forms  of  the  argu- 
ment as  involving  a  petitio  principii,  but  considered  his  own 
statement  of  it  valid  :  A  necessary  Being  is  possible  ;  a  nec- 
essary Being  is  impossible  unless  he  exists  now.  Therefore, 
a  necessary  Being  exists  now.  That  is,  if  he  can  be,  he 
must  be. 

But  this  is  only  an  appeal  to  ignorance.  More  fully  stated 
it  would  run  :  A  necessary  Being  may  or  may  not  exist ;  I 
do  not  know  which.  If  he  ever  existed  or  is  to  exist,  he 
must  now  exist.  Therefore,  I  do  not  know  whether  a  neces- 
sary Being  ^  ever  did,  does,  or  will  exist. 

B.  Samuel  Clarke  mingled  parts  of  the  cosmological  and 
ontological  arguments.  Justly  assuming  that  something  has 
existed  from  eternity,  he  asserted  that  the  eternally  or  neces- 
sarily existent  Being  could  be  recognized  by  the  impossibility 
of  denying  its  existence  without  self-contradiction  ;  and  in 
this  way  he  sought  to  identify  God  as  the  eternal  and  neces- 
sary being.  Infinite  space  and  infinite  duration,  he  said, 
could  not  be  denied.  But  these  are  only  qualities,  and  there- 
fore imply  an  eternal  and  omnipresent  substance,  that  is,  God. 

Two  errors  may  be  detected  in  Clarke's  argument : 
{a)  Infinitely  extended  substance  cannot  be  inferred  from 
localized  substance.     The  proper  conclusion  is  the  identical 

^  The  existence  of  anything  involves  the  necessary  existence  of  something. 
Cudworth' s  argument  is  not  needed  to  prore  this,  and  does  not  prove  that  the 
necessary  Being  is  other  than  the  universe. 


52  The  existence  of  god 

proposition  that  infinite  space  affords  room  for  infinitely  ex- 
tended substance. 

{b)  Necessary  being  and  being  which  cannot  without  self- 
contradiction  be  denied  are  not  interchangeable  expressions. 
The  former  certainly  includes  the  latter,  but  may  include 
more.  What  the  laws  of  mind  forbid  us  to  conceive  as  non- 
existent, they  obviously  require  us  to  conceive  as  existing. 
But  a  being  possessed  of  necessary  existence  may  be  un- 
known to  us ;  or,  if  known,  its  self-existence  may  not  be  rec- 
ognizable. Clarke,  therefore,  was  not  justified  in  deciding 
against  the  eternity  of  matter  merely  because  it  could  without 
self-contradiction  be  thought  of  as  not  existing. 

Concerning  the  various  forms  of  the  ontological  argument, 
it  may  be  observed  that  its  error  is  not  in  assuming  that  what 
is  necessary  in  thought  must  exist  in  fact,  but  in  virtually  as- 
suming what  it  purports  to  prove  ;  namely,  that  the  existence 
of  God  is  necessary  in  thought.  It  mistakes  a  thought  about 
God  as  necessarily  existing  for  a  necessary  thought  of  him  as 
necessarily  existing. 

On  the  other  hand,  while  the  existence  of  God  cannot  be 
dialectically  deduced  from  the  idea  of  perfect  being,  no  being 
less  than  perfect  can  be  accepted  as  God  by  a  mind  which 
already  entertains  the  idea  of  perfection.  And  further,  the 
response  of  our  moral  sensibilities  to  this  idea  supplies  what 
many  regard  as  the  only  secure  basis  for  theistic  belief; 
to  wit — 

V.    THE    MORAL    ARGUMENT. 

In  this  argument  we  reach  the  first  assurance  that  the 
creator  is  God.  As  its  evidence  is  found  in  the  nature  of 
man,  it  is  sometimes  called  the  Anthropological  argument, 


THE   EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  53 

but  is  distinctively  moral  or  religious.  As  sometimes  stated 
it  virtually  claims  for  man  an  intuition,  or  immediate  knowl- 
edge, of  God.  For  example,  conscience  testifies  to  the  exist- 
ence of  moral  law ;  but  recognition  of  law  is  said  to  be 
recognition  of  a  Lawgiver — a  claim  already  commented  upon. 
It  is  safer  to  regard  the  moral  argument  as  a  rational  infer- 
ence of  the  Divine  existence  from  moral  intuitions,  or  from 
the  response  of  what  may  be  regarded  as  our  moral  faculties 
to  the  idea  of  an  all-perfect  Being.  This  response  is  mani- 
fold and  clear,  or  confused  and  weak,  according  to  the  degree 
of  our  moral  development  and  moral  sensibility.  Appeal  to 
the  following  facts  would  perhaps  be  most  generally  ap- 
preciable : 

1.  Man  intuitively  knows  that  there  is  a  distinction  be- 
tween right  and  wrong.  In  recognizing  this  distinction  he 
becomes  aware  of  unqualified  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  one 
and  shun  the  other.     But — 

{a)  The  existence  of  conscience  is  first  understood  when  the 
idea  is  presented  of  an  all-holy  Creator  who  demands  that  we 
shall  be  like  himself,  and  who  has  implanted  in  our  nature  the 
sense  of  obligation  as  a  security  for  the  fulfillment  of  his  will. 

{b)  Conscience  finds  in  an  infinitely  holy  Person  a  needed 
moral  Archetype  for  man,  an  impressive  measure  of  the  ob- 
ligation to  be  holy  (cf.  i  Peter  i  :  i6),  and  so  the  counter- 
part of  conscience. 

If  this  is  not  a  revelation  of  God  in  conscience,  the  thought 
of  him  is  responded  to  by  conscience  with  a  distinctness  pro- 
portioned to  the  vigor  of  our  moral  health. 

2.  The  (Esthetic  sensibility  is  capable  of  worshiping  tran- 
scendent beauty  and  sublimity,  and  desires  to  know  that  it 
may  worship  them.  When  the  exaltation  of  God  is  appre- 
hended, admiration  deepens   into  awe,  and  the  demand  of 


54  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

the  aesthetic  sensibility  is  fully  met.'  At  such  a  moment 
it  is  impossible  to  doubt  the  existence  of  the  all-perfect 
One. 

This  phase  of  the  argument  is  allied  to  that  from  con- 
science in  two  particulars  : 

(a)  It  is  in  his  moral  attributes  that  God  is  most  exalted. 
But  while  conscience  defers  to  these  as  morally  perfect,  the 
ccsthetic  sensibility  adores  them  as  infinitely  beautiful  and 
sublime  (Ps.  29  :  2). 

(d)  Precisely  as  it  would  be  impossible  to  look  upon  an 
all-holy  Being  as  one  with  whom  we  have  nothing  to  do,  so 
the  thought  of  an  all-glorious  Being  is  not  only  poetical  but 
practical.  The  whole  energy  of  our  aesthetic  appreciation,  or 
worship,  claims  relations  with  such  a  Being  as  real. 

3.  T/ie  hiivian  heart,  with  love  as  its  normal  function, 
yearns  for  an  object  worthy  to  employ  its  utmost  vigor.  When 
God  is  so  loved,  our  healthful  affections  recognize  him  as  the 
One  for  whom  they  exist,  and  insist  on  his  reality  with  a  con- 
fidence entire  as  their  devotion  to  him. 

4.  A  Being  who  meets  so  varied  and  urgent  moral  needs 
is  an  object  of  corresponding  trust.  The  sense  of  dependence, 
beginning  with  experience  of  physical  limitations,  and  ac- 
knowledged even  by  the  agnostic  in  regard  to  the  Unknown, 
grows  as  our  higher  powers  turn  toward  God,  and  can  be  felt 
most  profoundly  when  most  amply  satisfied. 

In  general,  the  demand  of  every  moral  faculty  for  full 
exercise  is  a  normal  appetency ;  and  the  satisfaction  which 

'  Worship  is  distinctively  the  religious  function  of  the  aesthetic  faculty.  It  con- 
templates God  as  exalted  and  offers  homage.  It  is  admiration,  that  is,  aesthetic 
appreciation.  But  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  physical  beauty  or  sublimity  in  God, 
worship  recognizes  his  transcendent  glory  as  a  spirit,  and  is  expressed  in  praises  of 
attributes  that  appeal  also  to  the  conscience  and  the  heart. 


THE   EXISTENCE   OF  GOD  55 

these  appetencies  find  in  the  idea  of  God  gives  moral  assur- 
ance that  he  exists.  Their  testimony  is  not  to  the  satisfac- 
toriness  of  abstract  ideals,  but  of  a  Person  who  embodies 
ideals.  So  exclusively  personal  are  the  longings  and  the 
gratifications  of  our  moral  faculties,  that  they  certify  either 
the  existence  of  an  all-perfect  Deity,  or  to  the  boundless  self- 
delusion  of  man. 

Objections  to  the  Moral  Argument. 

(i)  Precisely  this  self-delusion  is  what  some  find  in  the 
moral  argument.  They  reduce  it  to  an  affirmation  that  a 
thing  exists  merely  because  we  wish  it  to  exist.  But  those 
things  do  exist  which  our  organization  demands.  Hunger 
notifies  us  of  a  physiological  want,  justifies  belief  that  nature 
makes  provision  to  meet  that  want,  and  largely  guides  us  in 
the  choice  of  food.  The  appetite  for  knowledge  urges  the 
mind  to  search  for  truth,  and  is  rewarded  by  the  progressive 
discovery  of  truth.  Confidence  may  reasonably  be  felt  that 
the  physiology  of  our  moral  powers  is  not  in  hopeless  and 
grotesque  contradiction  to  the  laws  of  body  and  mind. 

(2)  Nor  is  the  authority  of  our  moral  convictions  shaken  by 
the  evolutionist  theory  of  their  development  from  a  non-moral 
sentiment  of  caution,  of  submission  to  the  chief  of  a  tribe,  or 
of  parental  concern  for  offspring  during  the  long  period  of 
human  infancy  and  childhood,  or  from  the  observed  fitness 
of  conduct  to  natural  ends.      On  the  contrary — 

{a)  The  demands  of  our  moral  sensibilities  are  more  urgent 
and  their  authority  more  fully  recognized  with  every  advance 
in  moral  development. 

{I))  That  development  may  have  proceeded  under  discipline 
of  the  experience  which  the  evolutionist  cites,  and  the  dis- 
cipline may  have  been  able  to  awaken  and  train  the  con- 


56  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

science  without  being  able  to  produce  conscience.  It  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  evolution  is  a  process,  not  a  creating. 
Only  what  is  involved  can  be  evolved.     In  point  of  fact — 

{c)  Whatever  the  experience  in  the  course  of  which  the 
moral  quality  in  conduct  becomes  known,  that  moral  quality 
is  not  inferred  from  any  objective  fact,  nor  from  any  non- 
moral  sentiment.      It  is  intuited  in  every  instance, 

(aa)  The  evolutionist  has  yet  to  show  how  experience  of 
pain  or  pleasure  can  evolve  a  sense  of  duty  which  overrides 
all  consideration  of  pleasure  or  pain  ;  especially,  since  it  may 
well  be  doubted  whether  the  simple  virtues  of  a  savage  would 
not  cause  him,  apart  from  the  verdict  of  his  conscience,  more 
inconvenience  than  his  simple  vices. 

{bb)  The  evolutionist  would  have  to  show  that  a  moral 
estimate  of  a  chieftain's  orders  as  just  or  unjust  would  not  be 
already  present  when  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  to  obey 
arose. 

{cc)  Parental  care,  instead  of  suggesting  the  idea  of  duty, 
would  have  no  moral  quality  to  suggest  until  the  indispensa- 
ble condition  of  moral  quality,  namely,  the  capacity  of  moral 
discrimination,  had  already  been  developed.  "  I  fear  to  "  is 
not  "  I  ought  not  "  ;  and  "  I  must  "  is  not  "  I  ought." 

(dd)  Fitness  to  normal  ends  is  an  objective  fact ;  its  moral 
quality  exists  only  in  personal  beings,  and  is  intuited  by  rea- 
son, or  not  recognized  at  all. 

VI.    THE    HISTORICAL    ARGUMENT. 

The  experience  of  the  human  race,  especially  the  history  of 
Christianity,  testifies  to  the  existence  of  a  God.  This  argu- 
ment is  closely  related  to  the  teleological  and  moral  argu- 
ments. 

I.    The  teleological  argument  is  corroborated  by  the  move- 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  57 

ment  of  history  toward  ends  presumably  consonant  with  the 
will  of  an  over-ruling  Deity.  A  large  perspective  is  ordinarily 
needed  to  bring  this  fact  into  full  relief ;  but  sometimes 
events,  each  intrinsically  significant,  and  all  of  them  indis- 
pensable to  momentous  results,  arise  independently,  yet  so 
concurrently  as  to  signalize  the  timing  of  them  by  divine  plan. 
'  Such  was  the  provision  within  seventy  years  of  the  four  chief 
agencies  in  the  intellectual,  political,  and  religious  progress 
of  the  modern  world.  To  wit :  Printing  with  movable  types 
was  introduced  about  the  year  1450  ;  Constantinople  fell,  and 
Greek  learning  was  broadcast  over  Europe  in  1453  ;  Colum- 
bus discovered  a  new  hemisphere  for  the  new  age  in  1492; 
Luther  broke  the  spell  of  superstition,  emancipated  faith,  and 
provided  the  religious  element  of  modern  life  by  publishing 
his  theses  at  Wittenberg  in  i  5 1 7.  A  little  reflection  will 
show  how  each  of  these  epoch-making  events  played  its  part 
at  the  right  date  for  fullest  co-operation  toward  the  best  that 
has  come  from  them  all. 

2.  The  moral  argument  is  illustrated  by  the  alleged  uni- 
versal belief  in  a  God.  Though  the  fact  has  been  challenged, 
more  exact  inquiry  goes  to  establish  it,  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception, in  a  few  cases,  of  extreme  and  unmistakable  degen- 
eracy. 

3.  Both  the  teleological  and  moral  arguments  find  his- 
torical attestation  in  the  benefits  which  accrue  from  relig- 
ious belief. 

4.  Christianity  is  a  factor  in  history  which  must  be 
accounted  for.  And  since  its  prevalence  among  the  most 
enlightened  and  progressive  peoples  is  due,  not  to  argumenta- 
tion, but  to  evidence  of  various  sorts  which  it  offers  in  its 
own  behalf,  Christianity,  wherever  it  prevails,  is  the  chief 
assurance  of   the  existence  of  that  Being  whom  and  whose 


58  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 

ways  it  declares  to  men.  In  other  words,  the  only  adequate 
account  of  Christianity  as  a  historical  phenomenon  is  that  it 
is  true.     Christianity  presents  itself  in  different  phases  : 

A.  As  huvian. 

{a)  Christianity  is  a  tradition  competent  to  testify  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  once  lived,  and,  in  no  small  extent,  to  the 
view  which  his  disciples  took  of  him  from  the  earliest  times. 

{h)  A  system  of  external  institutions.  An  event  of  so 
unparalleled  moment  as  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  ought 
to  have  produced  corresponding  effects.  And  the  church,  in 
respect  of  the  age  it  has  attained  and  may  look  for,  in  extent 
of  territory,  in  the  scope  and  penetration  of  its  requirements, 
is  by  far  the  most  important  organization  of  men.  But  the 
church  and  its  observances,  the  Lord's  Day,  Baptism,  and  the 
Communion,  are  distinctly  monuments  to  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord,  and  to  the  acceptance  from  the  first  of  those  dis- 
tinctive articles  of  Christian  belief,  redemption  by  Jesus 
Christ  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

B.  As  divine. 

(a)  Christianity  is  a  Book,  and  as  such  has  been  unal- 
terably set  forth  alike  for  the  disciple  and  the  critic.  But 
this  Book  has  withstood  remorseless  criticism  from  every 
quarter,  and  is  established  in  the  reverence  of  the  civilized 
world. 

{p)  A  scheme  of  doctrines,  which  unfold  their  own  mean- 
ing, evince  their  own  truth,  and  to  a  large  extent  guard  their 
own  purity. 

{c)  A  life,  at  once  so  strong,  so  beneficent,  and  so  unique, 
both  in  its  confession  of  weakness  and  in  its  reliance  upon 
God,  as  to  argue  persuasively  that  its  origin  and  support  are 
from  God  (2  Cor.  12  :  5,  9,  10;  Phil.  3  :  8),  and  thus  to 
testify  to  his  existence. 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD  59 

C.  As  divine-hmnan. 

The  personal  Christ  claimed  to  be  himself  Christianity, 
"the  Way,  the  Truth,  the  Life."  He  is  at  once  the  sub- 
stance and  the  support  of  Christianity ;  that  which  is  to  be 
proved,  and  the  proof.  All  Christian  traditions,  institutions, 
sacred  writings,  and  doctrines,  center  in  him,  and  are  an  in- 
soluble enigma,  if  he  was  not  what  the  church  has  always 
held  him  to  be.  Christianity  as  a  life  shows  the  present 
part  which  Christ  takes  in  history.  His  influence  is  not 
mainly  that  of  his  ideas,  but  that  of  a  living  person.  As 
such  it  is  probably  more  commanding  continually  than  the 
influence  which  any  other  person  has  exercised  over  his  im- 
mediate followers. 

In  appealing  to  Christianity  for  evidence  that  there  is  a 
God,  care  must  be  taken  to  rest  only  on  historically  attested 
facts.  Otherwise  the  argument  proceeds  in  a  circle,  from  an 
assumed  to  an  inferred  existence,  proving  nothing. 

Remarks  on  the  Theistic  Arguments. 

Finally,  as  to  all  the  theistic  arguments  it  may  be  noted  : 

A.  If  the  first  be  accepted,  the  others  are  conclusive. 

B.  Taken  together,  they  have  a  cumulative  force  due  to 
the  rapidly  increasing  ratio  of  improbability  that  so  many 
kinds  of  evidence,  with  so  innumerable  details  in  favor  of 
some  of  them,  can  be  fallacious  and  misleading. 

C.  Our  relations  to  God  are  so  largely  a  matter  for  heart  and 
conscience  that,  when  these  are  unresponsive,  arguments  valid 
to  the  understanding  fail  to  impart  a  feeling  of  assurance. 

§  12.  The  Personality  of  God. 

Personality  consists  essentially  in  the  capacity  of  conscious 
self-determination,  or  will.     But  will  implies  ability  to  dis- 


6o  THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD 

criminate,  not  only  within  the  narrow  range  of  brute  intelli- 
gence, but  with  the  broad  scope  of  reason  ;  that  is,  capacity 
to  recognize  considerations  of  every  kind  pertaining  to  con- 
duct. Thus,  since  moral  considerations  are  among  these, 
personality  includes  reason,  and  culminates  in  the  capacity 
for  ethical  self -judgment,  or  conscience. 

That  God  is  a  person  is  assured  by  all  the  testimony  to 
his  existence.  The  causal  argument  ascribes  to  him  will ; 
the  argument  from  order  asserts  his  intelligence  ;  these 
views  united  testify  to  rational  purpose ;  the  moral  argument 
expressly  alleges  the  moral  powers  of  God  ;  a  divine  person- 
ality is  manifested  in  the  history  of  God's  relations  to  men. 

Philosophers  and  even  theologians  have  sometimes  at- 
tempted to  raise  God  above  personality,  chiefly  on  the 
grounds  that — 

1.  The  condition  of  self-consciousness — namely,  a  dis- 
tinction between  self  and  not-self — did  not  exist  prior  to  the 
creation. 

2.  Personality  involves  limitation.  One  person  cannot  be 
also  another  person  ;  but  the  Infinite  is  the  all-inclusive. 

3.  A  personal  God  would  have  been  aware  that  he  was 
admitting  evil  into  the  universe,  and  must  thus  have 
made  himself  responsible  for  evil.  Conscious  purpose  in 
man  is,  therefore,  only  a  symbol  of  something  impersonal  in 
God. 

To  these  objections  it  may  be  replied  in  turn: 

I.  We  are  not  bound  to  conjecture  the  mode  of  the  Divine 

existence  prior  to  that  period  which  gave  the  first  intimation 

that  a  divine  Being  existed.     Every  such  intimation  is  of  a 

personal  God,  and  the  difficulty  of  framing  a  divine  psychol- 


THE   UNITY   OF   GOD  6l 

cgy  does  not  justify  any  inference  against  that  which  all  the 
facts  go  to  show. 

Some  would  avoid  the  difficulty  by  affirming  the  eternal 
tri-personality  of  the  Godhead.  This  no  doubt  answers  such 
a  purpose,  and  is  a  doctrine  warranted,  as  we  shall  see,  by 
Scripture ;  but  to  the  monotheist  it  is  an  attempt  to  clear  up 
an  obscure  doctrine  by  one  still  more  obscure,  and  is  apt  to 
turn  out  a  mere  begging  of  the  question,  an  attempt  to  prove 
the  Trinity  by  the  personal  consciousness  of  God,  and  the 
personal  consciousness  by  the  Trinity. 

Others  suggest  that  God  might  find  the  condition  of  self- 
consciousness  in  distinguishing  between  his  attributes  ;  or, 
since  there  never  was  a  moment  when  the  Eternal  did  not 
contemplate  creating  the  universe,  that  he  always  had  the 
idea  of  a  distinction  between  himself  and  his  works. 

2.  The  personality  of  God  excludes  no  attribute  which 
would  not  itself  be  a  limitation  of  the  Divine  perfections  ; 
and  if  it  excludes  an  identification  of  his  substance  and  will 
with  those  of  created  beings,  this  is  a  result  of  voluntary 
self-limitation  in  the  act  of  creating. 

3.  The  reduction  of  personal  attributes  to  a  symbol  of 
what  is  real  in  God  either  virtually  admits  his  personality,  or 
involves  a  pantheistic  degradation  of  him  below  personality. 
In  the  latter  case,  the  irresponsibility  of  God  for  evil  is  se- 
cured only  by  relieving  man  also  of  his  responsibility  ;  for 
with  the  pantheist,  moral  distinctions  vanish  into  grades  of 
development,  human  personality  becomes  an  illusion,  and,  in 
brief,  the  common  consciousness  of  mankind  is  defied. 

§  13.  The  Unity  of  God. 

The  effort  of  philosophy  to  unify  all  knowledge  has  often 
proved  favorable  to  monotheism.     That  effort  never,  perhaps, 

F 


62  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD 

seemed  so  near  success  as  to-day.  Unity  of  the  divine  es- 
sence is  now  part  of  every  conception  of  God,  whether  theis- 
tic  or  pantheistic.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  never  more 
certain  that  duaHsm  could  not  be  fused  into  monism.  The 
material  cannot  be  converted  into  the  spiritual,  nor  the  spir- 
itual into  the  material ;  therefore  pantheism  makes  but  an 
illusory  show  of  success. 

1.  All  evidence  for  the  Divine  existence  points  to  one  God; 
no  evidence  to  more  than  one. 

{a)  God  is  the  origin  of  all  forces  ;  but  the  doctrine  of 
correlation  and  conservation  of  force  resolves  all  forces  into 
one,  and  only  one  Originator  is  needed  for  one  force. 

(^)  Universal  order  indicates  one  presiding  Intelligence. 

(c)  Adaptations  in  nature  do  not,  it  is  true,  in  all  cases 
reveal  the  Designer's  aim,  but  neither  do  they  indicate  a  con- 
flict of  designs.  As  has  been  well  indicated  by  Martineau, 
dissonances  "  arise  upon  the  line  of  the  very  same  law  which 
also  yields  the  greatest  harmonies  "  ("  Study  of  Religion," 
Vol.  I.,  p.  379). 

{d)  The  moral  consciousness  of  the  race  recognizes  one 
scheme  of  moral  law  and  one  moral  Governor. 

((?)  The  history  of  mankind  exhibits  one  overruling  Will. 

2.  Resistless  power  is  a  primary  attribute  of  God  alike 
with  rude  and  with  cultured  minds  ;  but  two  infinities  of 
power  would  equal  each  other,  and  then  neither  would  be  re- 
sistless. They  cannot  co-exist.  It  is  not  plain  that  two  in- 
finities of  any  other  kind  would  be  mutually  exclusive. 

3.  The  unity  of  God  is  self-coynmended.  In  Christian  lands 
the  objection  to  polytheism  virtually  has  the  force  of  a  nec- 
essary conviction.  We  may  believe  in  no  God,  but  not  in 
many  gods.     Nor  is  this  phenomenon  exclusively  Christian. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  63 

Notwithstanding  the  frequent  lapses  of  the  Hebrew  people 
into  idolatry,  monotheism,  once  clearly  conceived,  has  ever 
shown  an  inherent  force  capable  of  overthrowing  the  polythe- 
istic superstition.  The  more  intelligent  heathen  opponents 
of  our  missionaries  protest  that  their  doctrine  is  fundamen- 
tally monotheistic. 

This  invincible  sentiment  may  not  with  certainty  be  traced 
to  a  source  in  either  empirical  inference  or  native  intuition. 
But  even  if  it  be  a  product  of  advanced  civilization  and  re- 
fined religious  training,  it  is  not  therefore  factitious,  but  all 
the  more  evidently  suitable  to  man. 

Whatever  the  origin  of  monotheistic  belief,  it  is  fully  sup- 
ported by  the  conception  of  God  as  all-perfect.  The  senti- 
ments which  testify  to  the  existence  of  such  a  Being  require 
that  every  perfection  of  which  there  is  evidence  shall  be  as- 
cribed to  him.  The  moral  impossibility  of  accepting  any  in- 
ferior being  as  God  would  thus  appear  to  be  the  source  of  the 
repugnance  felt  toward  polytheism.  The  self-evidence  of 
monotheism  is  accordingly  plainest  to  those  who  hold  in 
view  the  moral  excellencies  of  God. 

4.  The  evidences  from  the  physical  and  the  moral  spheres 
unite  in  the  coincidence  of  physical  with  moral  laws.  To  re- 
spect the  laws  of  our  bodies  is  a  large  part  of  virtue,  and 
moral  law  receives  a  not  insignificant  sanction  in  the  physical 
good  or  ill  that  waits  upon  the  doing  of  right  or  wrong. 

§  14.  The  Attributes  of  God. 

Regarded  as  conceptions  in  the  human  mind,  the  attributes 
of  God  are  the  qualities  which  we  attribute  to  him  ;  but  con- 
sidered with  respect  to  the  divine  essence,  they  are  so  much 
as  we  learn  concerning  its  kind  through  the  relations  of  God 
to  dependent  beings. 


64  THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

Various  methods  of  classifying  the  attributes  have  been 
employed,  and  even  urged  as  alone  suitable ;  but  simple  and 
satisfactory  as  any  is  that  classification  which  follows  the  re- 
lations through  which  the  attributes  become  known.' 

I.    ATTRIBUTES    RELATED    TO    DURATION. 

1.  The  eternity  of  God.  By  this  is  meant  that  the  exist- 
ence of  God  is  without  beginning  or  end. 

Infinite  recession  of  existence  into  the  past  and  infinite 
procession  into  the  future  utterly  baffle  the  imagination,  but 
reason  exacts  belief  in  them.  Eternal  existence  must  be  as- 
cribed to  the  self-existing  Being.  As  he  never  began,  so  he 
can  never  cease  to  be. 

The  Scriptures  often  refer  to  the  eternally  pre-existent  as 
that  which  "  was  in  the  beginning,"  or  by  equivalent  phrases 
(Ps.  I02  :  25  ;  cf.  Heb.  i  :  10  ;  John  i  :  i,  2  ;  i  John  i  :  i  ; 
Rev.  I  :  8).  The  Hebrew  conception  evidently  was  that  he 
who  already  existed  when  the  worlds  began  was  himself  with- 
out beginning. 

2.  Immutability  was  shown  by  the  cosmological  argument 
to  be  a  necessary  attribute  of  the  Eternal.  More  fully 
stated  the  relation  of  these  attributes  is  as  follows  :  No  pro- 
cess of  change  can  have  taken  place  from  eternity,  because 
no  assignable  stage  can  have  an  assignable  date  in  such  a 
process.  But  neither  can  that  which  is  liable  to  change  be 
eternal ;  for  the  eternal  is  self-existent,  or  necessarily  exist- 
ent, while  the  changeable  is  essentially  contingent,  or  de- 
pendent. The  eternity  of  God  therefore  involves  his  im- 
mutability. 

*  This  admirable  principle  of  classification  was  worked  out  by  the  late  Dr.  E.  G. 
Robinson.     Its  application  in  the  text  is  somewhat  different  from  his. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  65 

But  the  question  arises  whether  immutability  belongs  to 
the  divine  essence,  or  to  the  modes  of  the  divine  Being,  or  to 
both.  Certainly  it  belongs  to  the  essence  of  God,  and  ap- 
parently to  his  mode  of  existence.  But  if  a  changeless  essence 
would  seem  to  preclude  changing  modes,  on  the  other  hand  a 
uniform  mode  of  existence  would  preclude  the  act  of  creating, 
as  well  as  the  variety  of  sentiment  which  is  involved  in  care 
for  the  varying  states  of  all  dependent  creatures,  and  partic- 
ularly in  concern  for  the  diverse  characters  of  moral  beings. 
We  are  certain  that  the  divine  perfection  excludes  immobility 
or  impassivity,  so  that  God  is  active  although  changeless. 
Perhaps  the  paradox  is  not  to  be  entirely  resolved,  yet  the 
following  considerations  may  be  taken  into  account  : 

{a)  The  infinite  always  involves  the  incomprehensible. 

{b)  In  the  act  of  creating,  God  voluntarily  accepted  limi- 
tations. 

{c)  The  attribute  of  spirituality  will  throw  some  light  upon 
this  problem. 

3.  Spirituality.  That  God  is  in  part  a  spirit  is  assured 
by  his  personality  ;  but  that  he  is  without  body  is  an  immedi- 
ate inference  from  his  eternity  and  immutability.  The  im- 
material alone  is  exempt  from  change. 

{a)  There  is  scientific  justification  for  believing  that  spirit 
is  capable  of  ceaseless  activity  without  undergoing  change. 
Motion  involves  change  in  material  agents  because  they  were 
integrated  by  the  expenditure  of  energy,  and  this  energy 
can  be  recovered  only  through  their  disintegration.  But 
spirit  is  not  an  aggregate  of  molecules ;  it  is  a  monad,  and 
therefore  essentially  indivisible  and  unchangeable.  What  we 
call  growth  of  the  human  mind  may  be  but  development  of  the 
organism  in  which  the  mind  is  lodged,  particularly  of  the  brain. 


66  THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

{b)  The  declaration  of  Christ  that  '•  God  is  Spirit  "  (John 
4  :  24)  means  that  he  is  without  body  ;  otherwise  true  worship 
might  turn  on  form  and  place  (ver.  20-23  >  cf.  Luke  24  :  39). 

An  attribute  so  essential  to  the  idea  of  God  as  spirituality 
must  be  taken  into  account  in  dealing  with  all  the  mysteries 
of  his  nature. 

II.    ATTRIBUTES    RELATED    TO    THE    PHYSICAL    UNIVERSE. 

I.  Omnipotence  is  power  to  do  all  things  not  contrary  to  the 
divine  perfections.  The  possibility  of  ceasing  to  be  perfect 
would  be  a  present  imperfection.  To  purpose  doing  self- 
contradictory  things  would  be  an  absurdity,  and  God  cannot 
be  absurd. 

Different  sources  of  knowledge  concerning  God  present 
different  views  of  his  omnipotence. 

A.  The  physical  universe — 

{a)  By  its  creation  reveals  power  without  known  limit. 
But— 

(^)  It  does  not  reveal  unlimited  power,  unless  itself  limit- 
less ;  as  to  which  nothing  is  known. 

{c)  Yet,  while  suggesting  no  bound  to  the  power  of  its 
Maker,  the  universe  lays  bounds  upon  the  activity  of  its 
Ruler.  While  he  keeps  it  in  existence,  he  must  deal  with  it 
according  to  its  nature.  Even  miracles,  as  we  shall  see,  are 
not  an  infraction  of  this  self-imposed  rule. 

B.  The  moral  sentiments  of  mankind  assure  us  of  what 
the  physical  universe  cannot  prove,  the  limitlessness  of  the 
divine  perfection  in  respect  of  power.  To  the  enlightened 
worshiper,  if  the  maker  is  not  almighty,  he  is  only  the 
highest  of  known  beings — a  demhirge,  not  the  Deity. 

C.  The  Scriptures  throughout  attribute  all  power  to  God  ; 
though  what  this  means  may  have  been  less  patent  to  the 


THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD  67 

patriarchs  than  to  the  apostles.  While  any  trace  remained  of 
the  belief  that  Jehovah  was  but  the  God  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  that  other  gods  might  exist  for  other  peoples,  a  corre- 
sponding defect  would  linger  in  the  popular  conception  as  to 
his  attributes,  particularly  as  to  that  of  omnipotence.  And 
when  this  ancient  fancy  of  ethnic  deities  was  outgrown  by 
the  Hebrews  is  not  entirely  clear ;  therefore  we  do  not  know 
whether  the  almightiness  declared  by  the  Bible  meant  to  its 
first  readers  all  that  it  means  to  us. 

2.  Omniscience  is  knowledge  of  all  things  actual  and 
possible. 

A.  To  create  the  universe  shows  how  much  God  needed  to 
know.  The  actual  extent  of  his  knowledge  may  be  inferred 
from  the  marks  of  foresight  and  reason. 

B.  That  what  may  seem  to  us  defects  in  the  plan  do  not 
prove  ignorance  in  the  Maker  is  assured  by  resort  to  the 
moral  argument  for  the  reality  of  a  Being  who  possesses  all 
perfections. 

C.  The  Scriptures  assert  the  knowledge  of  God  in  regard 
to  matters  that  bewilder  us  (Ps.  1 39  :  6  ;   147  :  4,  5). 

Abstruse  questions  are  suggested  by  the  doctrine  of  divine 
omniscience  : 

(A)  By  what  method  does  God  know  all  things  actual  and 
possible,  past,  present,  and  future } 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  he  knows  the  essence  and  the  totality 
of  everything,  and  consequently  sees  its  past  and  future  in 
its  present. 

But  the  answer  is  often  given  that  to  God  eternity  is  an 
ever-present  Now ;  that,  therefore,  all  events  are  to  the 
Divine  mind  without  succession,  and  his  knowledge  of  them 


68  THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF    GOD 

without  contingency.  This  view  is  thought  to  have  scrip- 
tural support  in  what  Christ  said  of  himself,  "  Before  Abra- 
ham was  I  am  "  ;  and  in  what  the  Apocalypse  wrote  of  Christ, 
"The  Lamb  who  is  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world" 
(Rev.  13  :  8).     But— 

{a)  If  absoluteness  and  infinity  both  of  being  and  of 
knowledge  necessitate  this  conclusion,  as  they  seem  to,  we 
face  here  an  antinomy  in  the  idea  of  God  as  at  once  the 
absolute  and  infinite,  and  yet  the  creator  and  ruler.  For 
causal  relation  and  succession  of  events  are  facts,  therefore 
must  be  facts  to  the  Divine  mind. 

(b)  So  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  quoted  is  contrary  to 
Scripture ;  for  then  the  slaying  of  the  Lamb  from  eternity 
must  go  on  through  eternity  ;  even  more,  Christ  is  just  now 
being  born,  doing  the  work  which  centuries  ago  he  declared 
to  be  finished,  is  rising,  and  is  pronouncing  final  judgment  on 
men  to  human  view  yet  unborn ;  indeed,  what  he  said  of 
himself  must  be  true  also  of  us — when  Abraham  was  we 
are.  In  brief,  if  the  speculative  conclusion  that  to  God,  who 
knows  things  as  they  are,  eternity  excludes  temporal  suc- 
cession, be  not  absurdly  audacious,  then  it  is  impossible  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  any  speculation  whatever.  An  ever- 
present  is  a  never-present  Now. 

Perhaps  the  nearest  approach  to  a  solution  is  that  to  create 
anything  is  to  accept  limitations.  Whenever  a  perplexity  can 
be  traced  to  the  infinite,  we  know  how  much,  in  knowing  how 
little,  can  be  known. 

(B)  If  God  foreknows  all  events  as  certain,  how  can  man 
be  free } 

It  has  been  replied  that,  while  God  knows  all  possibilities 
and  provides  for  them,  yet,  in  making  man  free,  he  set  limits 
not    only  to    the   fruition    of  his  own  will,  but  also  to  his 


THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  69 

knowledge  of  what  free  agents  will  do.  But  confessedly 
the  more  scriptural,  and  at  the  same  time  the  likelier,  reply 
would  be,  that  God  knows  in  advance  what  men  will  do,  be- 
cause he  fully  knows  what  men  are. 

The  divine  wisdom  is  the  knowledge  of  God  guiding  his 
acts.     Complete  knowledge  includes  knowledge  what  to  do. 

3.  Omnipresence  is  the  presence  of  the  personal  God  in 
all  his  works.  The  undivided  Godhead  is  everywhere.  The 
mystical  formula  for  this  doctrine  was  :  "  God  is  a  circle  whose 
center  is  everywhere,  and  whose  circumference  is  nowhere." 

Omnipresence  is  possible  only  because,  being  a  spirit,  God 
is  without  parts,  divisibility,  or  subjection  to  any  spatial 
limitations.  With  no  unreal  correspondence  to  the  divine 
omnipresence,  the  indivisible  human  spirit  is  everywhere  in 
the  human  body.  Its  function  in  one  part  is  not  the  same  as 
in  another  part,  except  that  it  is  the  vitalizing  principle  of 
the  whole. 

Being  immaterial  and  unlimited  by  the  laws  of  matter,  the 
personal  God  not  only  pervades  all  physical  objects,  but  is 
immanent  in  all  spirits.  His  presence  with  us  is  not  figura- 
tive, a  presence  merely  of  sympathy  and  help,  but  is  mysteri- 
ous and  real. 

If  thought  can  reach  the  boundaries  of  the  material  uni- 
verse, God  must  then  be  conceived  as  extending  on  through 
infinite  space.     Omnipresence  there  merges  into  immensity. 

The  scriptural  argument  for  the  omnipresence  and  immen- 
sity of  God  is  familiar,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  argument  for 
the  existence  of  an  all-perfect  Being. 


70  THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

III.  ATTRIBUTES  REVEALED  THROUGH  MORAL  RELATIONS. 

I.  Holiness.  One  feature  is  common  to  all  views  of  the 
Supreme  Being  which  are  attained  through  moral  relations, 
namely,  his  moral  excellence.  The  usual  and  best  name  for 
this  attribute  is  holiness.  Holiness  can  properly  be  ascribed 
to  any  being  only  when  moral  excellence  is  maintained  by 
him  with  all  the  energy  of  which  he  is  capable.  Theholi-'- 
ness  of  God  is  his  moral  excellence  maintaining  itself  with 
infinite  energy  as  of  infinite  worth.  It  is  purity  become 
power.  Or,  since  both  of  these  descriptions  are  figurative, 
the  divine  holiness  may  be  defined  as  infinite  and  unchange- 
able moral  excellence. 

Holiness  has  sometimes  been  defined  as  the  sum  of  the 
divine  perfections,  or  as  the  sum  of  the  moral  attributes. 
Either  definition  is  unsatisfactory. 

{(i)  Holiness  is  not  the  sum  of  all  perfections  ;  because, 
whatever  moral  quality  may  attach  to  the  acts  and  states  of 
a  moral  agent,  there  is  much  besides  moral  quality  in  them  ; 
and  the  moral  quality  of  holiness  cannot  be  the  sum  of 
non-moral  qualities,  such  as  eternity,  omnipresence,  and  re- 
sistless power. 

{b)  Neither  is  holiness  the  sum  of  the  moral  perfections  of 
God  ;  because  holiness  belongs  to  the  nature  of  God  as  such, 
while  most  of  his  other  moral  attributes  concern  his  relations 
to  his  creatures.  An  inherent  quality  may  control  active 
qualities,  but  is  no  more  the  sum  of  them  than  a  being  is  the 
sum  of  its  actions  or  relations. 

But  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  to  allow  any  of  the 
divine  perfections  to  be  impaired  would  be  the  greatest  im- 
aginable evil.  It  would  be  a  crime  against  the  nature  of  God, 
and  fatal  to  his  deity.     Holiness,  then,  though  not  the  sujh 


THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  71 

total  of  divine  attributes,  is  a  defense  of  them  all,  and  being 
itself  unchangeable,  serves  as  a  complete  safeguard  to  the 
divine  immutability.  In  its  relation  to  the  other  attributes, 
holiness  in  God  might  be  defined  as  his  moral  instinct  of 
self-preservation. 

2.  Benevolence  is  that  attribute  in  God  which  leads  him  to 
desire  the  well-being  of  others,  that  is,  to  love  them. 

By  many  benevolence  is  now  regarded  as,  in  the  last 
analysis,  best  descriptive  of  the  moral  excellence  of  God. 
Scriptural  support  is  thought  to  be  found  in  the  statements 
that  "God  is  love"  (i  John  4  :  16),  and  that  "love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law"  (Rom,  13  :  10;  cf.  Matt.  22  :  36-40). 
But— 

{a)  God  is  not  literally  love ;  nor,  as  the  words  are  some- 
times paraphrased,  is  his  nature  love.  A  being  is  not  a  feel- 
ing. God  is  a  being  who  naturally  loves.  Whether  this  is 
the  deepest  moral  reality  in  him  remains  to  be  considered. 

{b)  To  say  that  love  fulfills  the  law  is  not  to  say  that  love 
and  obedience  are  identical.  Love  is  the  sufficient  motive  to 
obey,  and  it  is  this  fact  which  justifies  the  terse  language  of 
Paul.  But  the  motive  to  a  deed  ought  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  deed,  nor  with  the  quality  of  goodness  in  the  motive 
or  in  the  deed. 

At  another  extreme,  many  object  to  resolving  holiness 
into  love,  because,  as  they  allege,  these  attributes  are  in  effect 
antithetic.  Contrariety  of  view  so  pronounced  ought  to  dis- 
appear upon  careful  consideration  of  the  nature  of  love  and  of 
its  effects. 

Once  more,  love  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  incapable  of 
analysis,  and  therefore  to  have  indefinable  merit.  Neither 
the  supposition  nor  the  inference  from  it  is  well  grounded. 


72  THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

The  questions  before  us  are :  What  is  love  ?  what  is  the 
merit  of  love  ?  and,  how  is  love  related  to  holiness  ? 

(i)  JV/ia^  is  love?  Love,  or  liking,  is  a  native  impulse  in 
sentient  beings  to  fulfill  their  functions.  In  the  case  of 
bodily  organs,  that  impulsion  is  appetite ;  with  the  faculties 
of  mind,  it  is  appetency.  For  example,  the  appetite  for  food 
is  a  natural  longing  of  the  digestive  apparatus  to  do  its  office  ; 
while  curiosity  and  zeal  in  study  are  the  natural  appetency  of 
the  mind  for  knowledge.  In  general,  we  normally  like  or 
love  most  that  which  is  fittest  to  our  faculties,  and  which 
most  fully  employs  without  straining  them.  Our  faculties 
are  either  self-regarding  or  social.     Correspondingly — 

(A)  Self-love  is  the  impulse  to  fulfill  functions  which  con- 
cern one's  self. 

(B)  Social  love  is  the  impulse  to  fulfill  social  functions.  Of 
these  the  following  may  be  distinguished  : 

{a)  Ability  on  the  part  of  rational  beings  to  recognize  the 
existence  of  both  self-regarding  and  social  faculties  in  others. 
Now  it  is  the  immediate  dictate  of  nature  to  discharge  self- 
regarding  offices,  therefore  social  love  normally  desires  that 
others  should  do  the  same.  For  this  reason  a  wise  benevo- 
lence dictates  that  every  man  should  rely  upon  his  own  exer- 
tions, and  loyal  devotion  to  God  would  first  of  all  have  him 
exist  and  act  in  his  own  behalf. 

{b)  Our  social  faculties  are  largely  faculties  of  self-imparta- 
tion  ;  therefore  love  to  others  impels  us  to  give  ourselves  to 
them.  Such  a  faculty  is  pre-eminently  that  of  speech.  For 
the  same  reason  the  pious  offer  themselves  and  all  they  have 
to  God. 

(c)  Some  of  our  social  faculties  are  faculties  of  acquisition. 
Seeing  and  hearing  are  of  this  sort.  Hence  it  is  that  social 
love  longs  to  possess  its  object.     Hence  also  jealousy.     Th^ 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  73 

craving  to  use  one's  faculties  of  giving  and  of  getting  is 
further  stimulated  by  the  desire  that  one's  friend  should  use 
his  faculties  of  getting  and  of  giving ;  hence  love  longs  for 
love,  for  both  acceptance  of  one's  self  and  possession  of  one's 
friend.  The  devout  long  to  be  assured  that  even  God  him- 
self discharges  his  social  office,  that  he  accepts  the  worship- 
ers and  gives  himself  to  them. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  inasmuch  as  the  social 
faculties  are  the  noblest  faculties  in  man,  the  impulse  to  use 
these  might  well  be  regarded  as  an  impulse  of  the  highest  self- 
interest,  while  to  neglect  or  to  misuse  them  is  the  deepest 
possible  injury  to  one's  self.  "Whosoever  will  save  his  life 
shall  lose  it ;  and  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake," 
said  Christ,  "shall  find  it"  (Matt.  16  :  25). 

(2)  W/iat  is  the  merit  of  love  f  This  is  to  be  found  partly 
in  the  fact  that  to  love  is  one  among  many  normal  functions, 
but  pre-eminently  in  the  fact  that  love  is  the  incentive  to  all 
other  normal  functions,  that  is,  to  the  true  ends  of  being,  as 
these  ends  are  determined  by  the  natures  of  the  beings 
concerned. 

(3)  But  this  conclusion  not  only  declines  to  resolve  holi- 
ness into  benevolence ;  it  also  sets  aside  the  supposed  anti- 
thesis of  these  attributes.  The  moral  persistence  of  God  in 
being  what  he  is  cannot  lessen  his  desire  that  his  creatures 
should  be  and  act  according  to  what  he  made  them  ;  and  this, 
we  have  seen,  is  precisely  the  aim  of  love. 

3.  Justice  is  the  impartial  award  to  every  one  of  that 
which  is  suitable  to  him,  the  rendering  of  his  own  to  every 
man.     What  is  due  is  determined  by  what  a  man  is ;  and 

G 


74  THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

what  he  is  includes  his  capacity  to  become  better.  Conduct 
is  both  an  exposition  of  what  one  already  is,  and  an  intensifi- 
cation of  the  same. 

The  real  relations  of  justice  to  benevolence  now  appear. 
The  distinction  between  these  attributes  in  the  divine  Being 
is  solely  one  of  form.  Strict  justice  cannot  render  to  any 
one  less  than  that  which  is  appropriate  to  him  ;  but  neither 
can  benevolence  ask  any  more.  Benevolence  intends  what  is 
well  for  the  creature  ;  justice  insists  on  what  is  fit.  But  the 
well-for-us  and  the  fit-for-us  precisely  coincide.  The  only 
thing  well  for  us  is  the  normal  employment  of  our  powers 
and  the  development  of  our  potentialities,  including  rela- 
tions to  ourselves,  to  creatures,  and  to  God  ;  but  to  provide 
for  this  is  precisely  what  is  fitting,  and  therefore  due  to  us. 
In  the  divine  nature  "  mercy  and  truth  are  met  together ; 
righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other  "  (Ps.  85  :  10). 

To  our  limited  understanding  these  attributes  often  set  up 
contrary  demands  ;  while,  as  a  rule  for  our  own  guidance, 
'mercy  should  rejoice  against  judgment'  (James  2  :  13). 
It  is  much  easier  to  see  what  is  well  for  another  than  what  is 
due  to  him,  and  far  safer  to  follow  the  suggestions  of  benevo- 
lence than  of  justice,  for  even  revenge  claims  to  be  but  just. 

If  there  is  no  essential  antagonism  between  the  benevo- 
lence and  the  justice  of  God,  no  ground  exists  for  that  dis- 
tinction among  different  kinds  of  justice  which  has  played 
an  important  part  in  the  theology  of  New  England.  This 
theology  taught  that  distributive  justice,  or  justice  proper, 
apportions  rewards  and  penalties — in  the  latter  case  appear- 
ing as  vindictive  or  punitive  justice ;  that  commutative  jus- 
tice is  equitable  barter  or  exchange;  while  public  justice  is 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD  75 

not  justice  at  all,  but  is  benevolence  administering  govern- 
ment wisely  in  the  interests  of  the  governed.  These  distinc- 
tions are  sometimes  convenient  in  form,  but,  if  supposed  to 
involve  distinctions  in  substance,  they  are  misleading. 

(a)  Justice  is  in  each  case  a  rendering  of  what  is  fit 
and  due. 

(d)  Justice  is  a  requirement  of  holiness,  not  a  contrived 
policy  in  government. 

4.  Tke  remaining  moral  attributes  need  no  detailed  discus- 
sion. Mercy  and  grace  are  phases  of  benevolence — toward 
the  wretched,  mercy  ;  toward  the  undeserving,  grace.  Verac- 
ity is  conformity  of  statement  to  fact — a  conformity  simply 
normal  in  a  Being  who  knows  all  reality.  Blessedness  is  the 
joy  which  God  finds  in  being  infinitely  good,  and  in  using  his 
powers  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  perfect  nature.  His 
glory  is  the  dignity  and  splendor  of  his  nature  in  itself  (es- 
sential glory),  or  as  revealed  in  his  works  to  rational  beings 
(declarative  glory). 

The  Primacy  Among  Moral  Attributes. 

It  should  not  now  be  difficult  to  show  that  holiness  takes 
precedence  among  the  moral  attributes  of  God. 

(i)  As  between  holiness  and  benevolence  holiness  is  to  be 
regarded  as  primary  ;  because — 

{a)  Holiness  is  itself  moral  excellence,  while  the  moral 
excellence  of  benevolence  can  be  explained. 

{V)  Holiness  is  an  attribute  of  being,  while  benevolence  is 
an  attribute  of  action  ;  but  action  presupposes  and  is  con- 
trolled by  being. 

{c)  Benevolence  must  take  counsel  of  holiness,  since  to  de- 
sire for  a  being  aught  contrary  to  holiness  would  be  to  wish 


76  THE   DIVINE  DECREES 

him  harm  ;  while  that  which  holiness  leads  God  to  seek,  be- 
nevolence finds  best  for  the  creature. 

{d)  The  Mosaic  Dispensation  elaborately  symbolized,  and 
the  Christian  Dispensation  makes  provision  to  meet,  the  re- 
quirements of  holiness  as  supreme.  "  First  pure,  then  [by 
consequence]  peaceable"  (James  3  :  17). 

(2)  As  between  holiness  and  Justice  it  is  obvious  that,  since 
holiness  is  the  moral  quality  which,  for  rational  creatures,  in- 
heres in  normal  being,  while  justice  is  normal  action  toward 
sentient  beings,  justice  is  per  se  subordinate  to  holiness.  In 
the  relations  of  God  to  moral  beings,  whether  good  or  bad, 
justice  is  the  exponent  of  his  holiness. 

(3)  As  between  benevolence  and  justice  the  definitions  show 
such  entire  correspondence  in  nature  and  concurrence  in  aim 
that  precedence  cannot  be  claimed  for  either.  It  is  only  to 
our  ignorance  that  either  one  can  seem  imperative  and  the 
other  voluntary ;  for  both  are  secure  if  either  wins.  To 
human  view,  while  probation  lasts  grace  reigns,  yet  justice  is 
not  defrauded  ;  and  if  any  suffer  eternally  for  sin,  benevo- 
lence must  acquiesce.  Whatever  is  precisely  suited  to  any 
one  cannot  be  other  than  the  best  possible  for  him.  It  must 
be  so,  although  his  plight  may  be  so  wretched  that  the 
only  thing  in  it  which  seems  well  is  that  the  case  is  no 
worse. 

§  1 5.  The  Divine  Decrees. 

The  decrees  of  God  are  the  eternal  and  sovereign  pur- 
poses for  which  he  created  all  things.  They  embrace  not 
only  the  universe  as  a  whole,  but  every  object  in  it ;  not 
only  consummations,  but  every  subsidiary  event ;  not  only 
the  active  furtherance  of  good,  but  the  incidental  permis- 
sion of  evil. 


the;  divine  decrees  77 

The  mention  of  decrees  at  once  puts  theology  on  the  de- 
fensive. But  this  is  a  false,  and  emphatically  unscriptural 
attitude.  The  Scriptures  present  this  doctrine  solely  as  a 
ground  for  hope,  even  when  it  threatens  the  foes  of  Israel  or 
of  the  church.  In  truth,  it  affords  the  only  assurance  of 
good  to  the  good,  the  sole  bond  that  the  promises  of  God 
can,  and  will,  be  kept. 

I.    EVIDENCES    OF    DECREES. 

I.  From  Natural  Theology. 

Natural  Theology  presents  the  most  uncompromising  as- 
pect of  decrees.  They  cannot  be  dissociated  from  the  idea 
of  God  which  nature  furnishes.  Every  argument  for  the  Di- 
vine existence  is  virtually  an  argument  for  the  eternal  pur- 
poses of  God.  Proceeding  from  the  most  complex  argument 
to  the  simplest,  we  notice  : 

{a)  History  viewed  at  large  testifies  to  a  divine  Over-ruler. 
But  history  assures  us  that  his  purposes  have  been  accom- 
plished, not  solely  by  the  overthrow,  but  in  part  through  the 
agency  of  evil.  Pre-eminently,  what  Christ  as  a  historical 
personage  achieved  is  due  more  to  the  ills  he  bore  than  to 
the  good  he  wrought.  The  greater  part  of  his  influence 
upon  history  he  owes  to  a  crime  of  the  human  race  against 
himself. 

{b)  Our  moral  faculties  testify  to  the  existence  of  an  All- 
perfect  Being,  whose  sovereignty  is  so  absolute  that  all  events, 
however  revolting,  must  be  regarded  as,  in  some  way  above 
our  understanding,  appointed  by  his  authority  and  permitted 
by  his  goodness. 

It  may  be  objected  that,  as  the  moral  argument  reaches 
the  idea  of  sovereignty  through  the  idea  of  perfection,  the 


78  THE   DIVINE   DECREES 

latter  must  condition  the  former,  and  forbid  us  to  believe 
that  evil  is  in  any  sense  included  in  the  decree.  But  the 
proper  inference  is  that  evil  must  not  be  charged  upon  the 
All-perfect,  although  his  sovereignty  in  the  matter  is  com- 
plete. The  moral  argument  teaches  us  that  his  sovereignty 
is  as  complete  as  his  perfection,  and  as  blameless, 

(c)  The  teleological  argument  expressly  declares  the  reign 
of  design  or  purpose.  But  adaptations  to  ends  exhibit  an  in- 
tention that  some  creatures  shall  prey  upon  others.  The  evo- 
lutionist doctrine  of  progress  through  struggle  for  existence 
intimates  that  physical  evil  was  introduced  that  good  might 
come.  The  whole  teaching  of  nature  is  that  God  entertains  a 
plan  wider  and  farther-reaching  than  we  can  pretend  to  know. 

(^)  Order  or  law  indicates  presiding  intelligence  ;  but  it  is 
an  intelligence  which  has  incorporated  in  the  universe,  as  in 
a  complex  mechanism,  a  destiny  which  it  must  work  out. 
Laws  discovered  or  formulated  by  modern  science,  like  the 
law  of  heredity,  outdo  in  harshness  the  most  austere  theology. 
A  pantheistic  view  of  nature  is  not  less  necessitarian  than  a 
positivistic,  and  is  optimistic  only  at  cost  of  belittling  evil. 

(e)  The  proof  that  God  is  the  First  Cause  is  proof  that  he 
is  a  Will.  But  he  is  eternal  and  unchangeable ;  therefore 
his  purposes  are  changeless  and  eternal. 

Uniting  the  argument  for  Will  with  the  argument  for  In- 
telligence, we  have  the  most  startling  view  of  decrees.  The 
All-knowing  knew  in  advance  what  would  occur  if  he  made 
the  world.  To  decide  on  creating  was  virtually  to  decide  on 
all  that  has  followed. 

2.  Evidence  from  Scripture, 

{a)  A  few  texts  expressly  declare  the  existence  of  decrees; 
e.  £■.,  Isa  14  :  24 ;  46  :  lo ;  cf.  Dan.  4:35;  Eph.  i  :  11. 


THE  DIVINE   DECREES  79 

{b)  Prophecy  represents  future  events,  not  only  as  foreseen, 
but  as  in  large  part  predetermined. 

(t)  The  predestination  of  some  men  to  salvation  is  an  illus- 
tration of  decrees.  But  the  fuller  statement  of  this  phase  of 
the  doctrine  belongs  to  soteriology, 

{d)  The  doctrine,  however,  is  not  to  be  looked  for  so 
much  in  single  texts  of  the  Bible  as  in  its  prevailing  concep- 
tion of  the  supremacy  of  the  divine  will.     This  appears  in — 

(aa)  The  acceptance  of  the  will  of  God  as  the  standard  of 
right.  Acts  otherwise  abhorrent  were  performed  without 
scruple  when  God  required  them.  Thus  Abraham  felt  no 
compunctions  about  offering  Isaac ;  no  hint  is  given  that 
Jephthah  thought  himself  exempt  from  fulfilling  his  rash 
vow ;  nor  did  the  command  to  extirpate  the  Canaanites  seem 
to  require  any  vindication  at  the  period  when  either  Testa- 
ment was  written. 

{bb)  The  declaration  that  God  instigated  wicked  men  to 
deeds  confessedly  wrong.  For  example,  the  Lord  is  repre- 
sented by  a  prophet  as  sending  a  lying  spirit  to  deceive  Ahab 
(i  Kings  22  :  22,  23) ;  as  intending  to  send  a  strong  delusion 
upon  the  wicked  that  they  may  believe  a  lie  (2  Thess.  2:11); 
as  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart  that  the  divine  name  might  be 
declared  in  the  earth  (Rom.  9  :  17) ;  as  determining  the  very 
things  that  should  be  done  to  Christ  (Acts  4  :  28),  and  deliv- 
ering him  by  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  into  the 
wicked  hands  that  would  crucify  and  slay  him  (Acts  2  :  23) ; 
possibly  even  as  fitting  some  vessels  of  wrath  for  destruction 
(Rom.  9  :  22),  and  appointing  that  some  should  stumble  at 
the  gospel  (i  Peter  2  :  8);  while,  in  reply  to  an  objector, 
Paul  claims  for  God  the  right  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  his 
own  (Rom.  9  :  19-24). 

The  entire  artlessness  of  these  statements,  the  evident  un- 


8o  THE  DIVINE  DECREES 

consciousness  of  any  need  to  justify  God, — except  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  whose  attempt  at  justification  is  but  the  widest 
assertion  of  sovereign  rights, — shows  as  plainly  as  express 
statements  could  that  the  sovereignty  of  God's  purpose  un- 
derlay the  entire  biblical  conception  of  his  relations  to  things 
and  men. 

But  while  the  Bible  does  not  lower  the  conception  of  the 
divine  sovereignty  which  may  be  derived  from  nature,  it  never- 
theless provides — 

II.    SAFEGUARDS    AGAINST    MISCONCEPTION    OF    DECREES. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  decrees  should  not  be  mistaken  for  the 
ancient  doctrine  of  fate.  Fate  was  believed  to  be  an  im- 
personal destiny  ruling  men  and  gods.  But  the  Scriptures 
represent  decrees  as  turning  on  the  most  personal  element  in 
God — his  will. 

2.  Decrees  should  not  be  mistaken  for  the  modern  doctrine 
of  necessity.  Not  a  few  physiologists  urge  that  men  are 
under  an  essentially  mechanical  necessity  of  yielding  to  im- 
pulses received  from  without.  But  the  Bible  addresses  man 
as  free.  What  he  does,  he  himself  knows  that  he  does  be- 
cause he  chooses  so  to  do. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  decrees  offers  but  a  single  aspect  of  the 
case,  presented  for  practical  ends,  and  ought  not  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  theoretical  exposition  of  the  whole  matter. 

(a)  A  secondary  truth  is  misleading  when  mistaken  for  a 
primary  truth.  It  is  true  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  proxi- 
mate standard  of  right ;  but  the  ultimate  standard  is  the  holi- 
ness of  God. 

(6)  God  is  sometimes  represented  as  directly  doing  what 
the  course  of  his  providence  brings  about  as  part  of  the  es- 
tablished  system  for  correcting  great  evils  and   bestowing 


THE   DIVINE  DECREES  8l 

great  good.  Reformers  are  wisely  eager  to  see  the  harvest 
of  evil  and  good  ripen,  that  they  may  separate  the  tares 
from  the  wheat.  It  was  thus  that  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  was 
hardened,  and  thus  that  his  wickedness  could  be  defeated. 
He  hardened  his  own  heart,  and  it  was  respite  from  severity 
that  led  him  so  to  do  (Exod.  8  :  15,  31,  32  ;  9  :  34).  Even 
Christ  could  say  to  Judas,  after  Satan  entered  into  him,  . 
•*  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly"  (John  13  :  27). 

(c)  This  method  of  governing  the  world  is  not  arbitrary,  but 
is  in  strict  accord  with  the  laws  of  the  human  mind.  The 
greater  part  of  the  events  described  in  the  startling  texts 
above  referred  to  come  about  through  the  agency  of  habit. 
Habit  is  the  momentum  of  the  mind.  It  is  therefore  econ- 
omy of  effort.  We  would  be  incapable  of  doing  at  the  cost 
of  overcoming  moral  inertia  in  each  instance,  what  we  readily 
do  by  habit.  But  it  is  incident  to  this  advantage  that  habit- 
ual evil  also  is  easy  and  can  be  overcome  only  by  what  may 
seem  disproportionate  violence.  For  this  reason,  to  him  who 
looks  for  God's  part  in  history,  the  human  element  may  some- 
times appear  unimportant,  while  the  divine  is  conspicuous  and 
alone  significant. 

(d)  More  than  all,  while  the  Bible  casts  no  doubt  upon  the 
supremacy  of  the  Divine  will,  it  lays  emphasis  alike  upon  the 
holiness  and  benevolence  of  God,  and  upon  the  responsibility  5 
and  convertibility  of  man.  Paul  repels  the  notion  that  the 
non-elect  have  "  stumbled  in  order  that  they  might  fall " 
(Rom.  II  :  11),  and  assures  Timothy  that  God  "would  have 
all  men  to  be  saved"  (i  Tim.  2:4);  while  Peter  explains  the 
delay  of  vengeance  by  the  long-suffering  of  God,  who  does 
not  wish  "  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to 
repentance"  (2  Peter  3  :  9).  We  know  that  the  decree  can- 
not be  capricious,  for  God  is  wise ;  that  it  cannot  be  evil,  for 


82  THE   DIVINE  DECREES 

he  is  holy ;  and  that  it  cannot  be  unkind,  for  he  is  good. 
Without  knowing  what  the  decree  is,  we  might  fitly  entrust 
ourselves  to  it  and  say,  "  It  is  Jehovah  ;  let  him  do  what 
seemeth  him  good  "  (i   Sam.  3  :  18). 

We  conclude  that,  although  the  Bible  does  not,  and  per- 
haps could  not,  show  us  how  the  sovereignty  squares  with 
the  goodness  or  even  the  holiness  of  God,  it  insists  upon  all 
the  divine  perfections,  traces  the  prerogatives  of  God  to 
these,  and  thus  guards  against  one-sidedness  and  extrava- 
gance of  view. 

III.    THEORIES    OF    DECREES. 

1.  The  hyper-CalvinistiCy  that  God  eternally  purposed  to 
bring  about  all  things,  including  sin,  by  his  own  direct  or  in- 
direct efficiency. 

But  to  intend  evil,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  would  be 
incompatible  with  holiness  and  grace.  There  is  no  tenable 
objection  to  believing  that  God  directly  and  indirectly  pro- 
motes the  good. 

2.  The  moderate  Calvinistic  view,  that  God  permitted  evil 
either — 

{a)  That  good  might  come ;  which  is  open  to  the  same 
objection  as  the  preceding  theory  ;  or — 

{U)  As  incidental  to  creation.  Indeed,  any  scheme  which 
included  free  moral  agents  would  seemingly  include  a  possi- 
bility of  sin.  But  since,  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  the 
plan  adopted  included  the  certainty  of  sin,  the  difficulty 
remains  that  a  decree  to  create  apparently  involved  respon- 
sibility for  all  the  consequences. 

3.  The  Pelagian  view,'  which,  starting  with  an  extreme 
doctrine  of  human  freedom,  affirms  that  the  Divine  will  is 
always    conditioned  by  the   freedom   of    man,  and  on  that 


CREATION  83 

ground  denies  decrees.  But  the  present  advocates  of  this 
opinion  in  some  cases  admit  it  to  be  unscriptural,  and  make 
little  account  of  this  fact. 

4.  The  7noderate  Arminian  insistence  on  human  freedom 
and  admission  of  divine  sovereignty,  with  a  denial  of  decrees 
on  the  grounds  : 

{a)  That  the  relation  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  wills  is 
too  profound  a  mystery  to  warrant  the  affirmation  of  decrees. 

But  it  is  not  unwarrantable  to  regard  the  sovereignty  of  a 
person  as  the  sovereignty  of  his  will,  or  purpose.  This  is 
but  to  push  back  as  far  as  possible  the  frontier  of  impene- 
trable mystery.  Decrees  expose,  but  do  not  cause,  the  dif- 
ficulty. 

{h)  The  holiness  and  benevolence  of  God  forbid  him  to  de- 
cree even  permissively  the  existence  of  evil. 

But  he  has  decreed  the  existence  of  a  world  to  which  evil 
was  a  foreseen  incident. 

{c)  The  doctrine  of  decrees  is  incompatible  with  freedom 
of  the  will  in  man. 

But  God,  foreknowing  what  free  wills  would  do,  must  be 
regarded  as  including  their  free  determination  in  his  plan. 

{d^  The  doctrine  of  decrees  leads  the  wicked  to  charge 
upon  God  the  responsibility  for  their  conduct  and  fate. 

But  what  God  destines  for  any  man  he  brings  about 
through  that  man's  volition.  God  absolutely  decrees  a  con- 
ditional universe.  His  decree  is  as  absolute  as  though  there 
were  no  freedom ;  freedom  is  as  complete  as  though  there 
were  no  decree. 

§  16.  Creation. 

Creation  may  mean  either  the  origination  of  spirit  and 
matter  by  fiat  of  God,  or  the  formation  by  divine  interven- 


^4  CREATION 

tion  of  things  living  and  non-living  out  of  substance  which 
has  existed  from  eternity.  The  Bible  alone  directly  testifies, 
or  could  directly  testify  to  creation  in  either  sense. 

I.    TESTIMONY    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

That  the  Bible  teaches  the  introduction  of  at  least  some 
new  species  by  special  act  of  God,  no  one  denies.  Most  per- 
sons have  also  understood  it  to  teach  the  absolute  origination 
of  matter.  The  texts  which  may  be  quoted  for  this  view  are 
not  numerous,  and  some  of  them  at  least  are  capable  of  a 
different  interpretation.  Yet  no  other  interpretation  was  or 
is  natural  to  the  reader  who  exalts  the  Almighty  above  the 
universe  as  the  Bible  has  taught  man  to  do.  The  following 
passages  may  be  referred  to : 

(a)  Gen.  i  :  i.  The  Hebrew  word  Bard  in  the  Kal  form  is 
never  used  except  of  an  act  of  God,  and  never  with  an  accusa- 
tive of  material  employed.  The  phrase  "  in  the  beginning  " 
would  indicate,  according  to  Hebrew  idiom,  that  nothing  but 
God  had  existed  before  the  event  spoken  of  as  "  the  begin- 
ning." And  the  second  verse  represents  chaos  as  following, 
not  as  preceding  the  first  creative  act.  Grammatically  in- 
deed, but  not  rhetorically,  the  first  verse  might  be  accepted 
as  a  very  curt  epitome  of  the  entire  process  about  to  be  de- 
tailed, and  the  second  verse  as  describing  a  state  of  chaos 
which  had  existed  from  eternity  ;  but  this  is  an  interpretation 
which  only  necessity  or  adventurous  ingenuity  would  be  likely 
to  propose. 

(d)  Rom.  4:17  tells  us  that  the  faith  of  Abraham,  to 
whom  God  had  promised  a  son,  grasped  the  fact  that  God 
calls  into  existence  the  things  that  are  not.  This  may  be 
accepted  as  Paul's  interpretation  of  the  first  verse  in  the 
Bible. 


CREATION  85 

(c)  I  Cor.  8  :  6  teaches  that  God  is  the  source  of  all  things, 
as  Christ  is  the  agent  in  their  creation. 

(d)  In  form,  Heb.  11:3  merely  denies  that  visible  things 
were  made  out  of  visible  materials ;  but  in  substance,  it  tells 
what  the  faith  of  the  Hebrews  could  grasp  as  to  origins. 
Three  alternatives  are  possible  :  visible  things  were  made  out 
of  visible  ;  out  of  invisible  ;  or  "  out  of  nothing."  The  first  is 
expressly  denied  by  the  text ;  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
the  second  was  the  belief  of  the  Hebrews  ;  therefore  this 
text  in  effect  declares,  with  all  the  energy  of  understatement, 
that,  in  the  view  of  true  faith,  "the  word  of  God"  made  the 
worlds  "out  of  nothing." 

II.    TESTIMONY    OF    METAPHYSICS. 

Appeal  to  the  necessities  of  thought  confirms  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible.  It  may  be  regarded  as  an  illegitimate  method 
of  seeking  the  truth  about  physical  things.  But  it  would  be 
to  the  confusion  of  science  and  philosophy  alike  to  admit  that 
the  laws  of  mind  are  out  of  harmony  with  those  of  matter. 
That  absolute  reliance  upon  the  conclusions  of  physical 
science  which  is  now  the  chief  stimulus  to  its  pursuit  would 
be  at  an  end. 

A.  Negatively ;  the  most  careful  observations  and  most 
obvious  conclusions  would  be  unworthy  of  acceptance,  be- 
cause reached  by  the  use  of  untrustworthy  faculties. 

{a)  Induction  rests  upon  specimen  facts,  and  appeals  to 
the  uniformity  of  nature  as  its  warrant.  But  the  uniformity 
of  nature  rests  in  turn  upon  the  necessary  metaphysical  as- 
sumption that  objects  of  the  same  class  have  and  must  con- 
tinue to  have  the  same  common  properties  ;  because  properties 
inhere  in  substance,  and  so  to  suffer  a  change  of  properties 
would  be  to  become  an  object  of  another  class. 


86  CREATION 

(d)  The  deductions  of  pure  mathematics  would  have  to  be 
rejected,  because  its  conclusions  rest  solely  upon  the  validity 
of  the  laws  of  thought.  But  mathematics  is  an  indispens- 
able organ  of  physical  investigation  ;  the  law  of  gravitation, 
for  instance,  was  worked  out  by  its  means.      But — 

B.  Positively ;  the  progress  of  knowledge  in  all  spheres, 
while  utterly  failing  to  reduce  matter  and  mind  to  one  sub- 
stance, shows  with  startling  distinctness  their  intimate  rela- 
tions and  the  delicate  harmony  of  their  laws.  It  is  not  then 
superfluous  to  recall  the  metaphysical  phase  of  the  cosmologi- 
cal  argument ;  to  wit — 

It  is  inconceivable  that  a  process  of  finite  causes  and  effects 
can  have  existed  from  eternity.  The  only  real  cause  is  a  first 
cause.  There  must  be  one  absolute  Being.  It  is  idle  to 
imagine  the  contrary  of  so  self-evident  a  fact.  If  it  be 
objected — 

That  we  are  unable  to  conceive  the  creation  of  things  out 
of  nothing, — ex  nihilo  nihil  fit, — it  may  be  replied  that  the 
doctrine  of  creation  assumes  the  existence  of  a  Power  compe- 
tent to  do  all  things  which  are  not  contrary  to  his  perfections  ; 
and  that,  although  we  are  unable  to  represent  in  imagination 
the  absolute  beginning  of  things,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  con- 
ceiving that  God  could  effect  it — the  only  sense  of  the  word 
"  conceive  "  pertinent  to  this  discussion. 

HI,    TESTIMONY    OF    NATURAL    SCIENCE. 

Natural  Science  is  now  known  to  be  not  unfavorable  to  a 
theistic  view  of  the  world,  but  probably  a  majority  of  eminent 
naturalists  repudiate  the  biblical  doctrine  of  creation.  This 
is  done  on  various  grounds. 

I.  Naturalists  are  disposed  to  assume  tke  eternity  of  mat- 


CREATION  87 

ter:  and  for  the  reasons  that  science  cannot  know  aught  of  a 
creation  ;  it  finds  matter  indestructible ;  it  refuses  to  concede 
any  addition  to  the  forces  of  the  universe ;  it  interprets  caus- 
ation by  the  law  of  continuity,  as  the  extension  and  unfold- 
ing of  the  cause  in  the  effect,  thus  precluding  an  absolute 
beginning  of  the  universe.     But,  on  the  other  hand — 

A.  Scientists,  of  all  men,  should  not  "  beg  the  question." 
If  Science  cannot  know  a  Creator,  it  cannot  know  there  was 
none,  until  it  has  at  least  shown  matter  to  be  eternal — the 
very  point  at  issue. 

B.  To  say  that  indestructibility  proves  eternal  pre-existence 
is  again  to  beg  the  question  ;  because  indestructibility  may 
be  due,  not  to  capacity  of  self-existence,  but  to  support  by  the 
power  of  a  Creator. 

C.  To  deny  that  the  sum  of  forces  has  been  increased  is  to 
deny  what  there  is  no  need  to  affirm.  The  doctrine  of  the 
convertibility  of  force,  in  the  name  of  which  the  denial  is 
made,  cannot  be  urged  against  an  addition  to  the  sum  of 
forces,  because  before  the  creation  there  were  no  forces. 

D.  The  law  of  continuity  holds  in  an  already  existing  uni- 
verse, but  is  manifestly  inapplicable  to  its  origination.  Be- 
cause— 

{a)  If  matter  consists  of  solid  atoms,  it  cannot  have  taken 
eternity  to  reach  its  present  state. 

ip)  If  it  consists  of  atomic  energies,  universal  order  proves 
that  intelligence  has  been  associated  with  energy  from  a  defi- 
nite beginning  of  motion  within  the  mass. 

ic)  If,  in  order  to  escape  these  objections,  matter  is  re- 
garded as  a  temporal  form  of  one  eternal  substance  having 
two  aspects,  intelligence  and  energy,  which  find  their  unity 
in  will,  the  insuperable  difficulty  arises  that  the  law  of  con- 
tinuity cannot  apply  to  the  direction  of  energy  by  intelligence 


88  CREATION 

without  conversion  of  a  mental  state  into  a  physical ;  but 
such  a  conversion  is  admitted  to  be  impossible. 

2.  Many  biologists  hold  to  the  spontaneous  generation  of 
life  on  the  ground  that  mechanical  and  chemical  forces  must 
be  considered  adequate  to  effect  all  that  has  taken  place  in 
the  world.     It  may  be  replied — 

A.  This  general  assumption  would  carry  with  it  the  anti- 
creationist  doctrine  a  priori.  But  no  account  of  the  origin  of 
life  can  be  accepted  without  proof.  The  origination  of  life, 
either  creatively  or  spontaneously,  is  a  departure  from  the 
observed  course  of  nature.  It  is  unscientific  to  insist  on  the 
one  or  on  the  other  of  these  marvels  without  conclusive  evi- 
dence, and  the  naturalist  is  no  more  at  liberty  than  the  theo- 
logian to  beg  the  question, 

B.  The  presumption  is  strong  against  the  identity  of  the 
vital  principle  and  inorganic  force.  This  presumption  is  due 
to  the  facts  that — 

{a)  Spontaneous  generation,  or  abiogenesis,  has  never  been 
artificially  secured,  although  artifice  can  provide  favorable 
conditions  with  far  greater  readiness  than  nature  could. 

{b)  The  vital  principle  is  plainly  distinguishable  from 
chemical  and  mechanical  forces  throughout  the  entire  life- 
history  of  an  organism.  The  vital  principle  constrains  phys- 
ical forces  into  the  service  of  building  or  restoring  organic 
tissues  ;  but  when  the  vital  principle  declines  and  is  finally 
lost,  physical  forces  begin  to  tear  apart  what  they  had  put 
together. 

{c)  The  vital  principle  is  not  itself  a  force,  although  it 
controls  forces.  In  this  respect  the  vital  are  like  the  volun- 
tary functions  of  a  sentient  being :  in  neither  case  is  there 
any  evidence  that  the  psychical  is  convertible  with  the  phys- 


CREATION  8g 

ical.  The  same  law  extends  to  the  vital  principle  in  plants  : 
it  is  not  convertible  with  physical  energy,  and  therefore  is 
not  a  physical  energy. 

We  conclude  then  that,  while  the  presumption  is  against 
supernatural  interventions  in  our  day,  it  is  against  sponta- 
neous generation  formerly ;  and  if  it  does  not  tell  against 
descent  of  species,  it  is  because  in  this  case,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  process  of  evolution  has  left  its  traces. 

C.  If  abiogenesis  were  proved,  creation  would  not  be  dis- 
proved. The  inorganic  would  then  be  known  to  possess  that 
power  of  begetting  the  organic  which  organisms  themselves 
exhibit  in  the  ordinary  propagation  of  individuals,  creation 
would  be  mediate  instead  of  immediate,  in  the  one  case  as  it 
is  in  the  other ;  but  in  both  cases  alike  involution  must  pre- 
cede evolution. 

3.  Evolutionists  of  all  schools  reject  the  doctrine  that 
every  species  was  produced  by  a  special  creative  interposi- 
tion. The  account  given  in  Genesis  is  thought  by  respect- 
able exegetes  not  to  require  this  interpretation,  but  to  be 
even  better  understood  as  teaching  that  the  four  creations  of 
living  things  produced  but  the  earliest  members  of  a  class, 
and  laid  upon  nature  the  charge  of  evolving  all  the  included 
species.  The  biblical  cosmogony  so  far  accords  with  evolution 
that  it  needs  no  hardihood  to  accept  the  agreement  as  inten- 
tional. 

Evolution  has  not  been  proved ;  but  the  tendency  is  very 
marked  among  scientific  men  to  accept  it  as  an  article  of 
scientific  faith  ;  and,  thus  far,  the  not  unscriptural  derivation 
of  species  by  descent  from  forms  introduced  through  a  few 
divine  interpositions  has  more  evidence  in  its  favor,  and  is 
freer  from  difficulties  than  any  other  view. 


90  CREATION 

A.  Evidence  in  favor  of  a  not  unscriptural  doctrine  of 
Evolution  is — 

(a)  The  correspondence  of  embryonic  to  race  development, 
of  ontogenesis  to  phylogenesis.  The  embryo  of  an  individual 
takes  successive  forms  characteristic  of  simpler  types,  and 
which  possibly  sketch  the  descent  of  its  type  from  other 
types. 

(d)  The  existence  of  homologues,  or  anatomical  identity 
with  functional  difference  ;  for  instance,  as  found  in  the  pec- 
toral fin  of  a  fish,  the  wing  of  a  bird,  the  pastern  and  hoof 
of  a  horse,  and  the  hand  of  a  man. 

(c)  The  significant  occurrence  of  rudimentary  or  abortive 
organs.  These  organs  were  once  useful  to  an  earlier  and 
presumably  ancestral  species,  but  have  become  atrophied 
through  disuse  by  the  species  in  which  they  appear  as  rudi- 
mentary. 

(d)  The  geographical  distribution  of  related  species  over 
related  territory.  Notably  the  restriction  of  the  sloths  to 
South  America,  and  of  the  singular  duck-bill  or  ornithorhyn- 
chus  to  Australia. 

(e)  The  geological  succession  in  isolated  territories,  like 
New  Zealand,  of  existing  species  to  related  but  not  identical 
fossil  species  ;  e.  g:,  the  allied  apteryx  and  dinornis. 

(/)  The  enormous  presumption  that  nature  has  done  what- 
ever has  occurred  within  her  realm.  This  presumption  makes 
miracles  in  our  day  well-nigh  incredible,  and  weighs  almost 
equally  against  miracles  and  supernatural  creations  in  any 
former  period.  To  deny  them  on  this  account  would  be,  as 
above  urged,  to  beg  the  question  ;  but  cogent  testimony  is 
needed  in  order  to  overcome  this  negative  evidence. 

All  the  foregoing  evidence  is  prima  facie  favorable  to 
various  theories  of  evolution.     That  it  is  available  only  for  a 


CREATION  91 

theory  not  out  of  harmony  with  the  Scriptures  may  be  seen 
from — 


B.  The  Evidence  against  theories  of  Evolution,  which  are 
less  accordant  with  Scripture. 

{a)  Especially  unthinkable  is  a  purely  natural  transition 
from  insensible  plants  feeding  on  inorganic  matter  to  sentient 
animals  feeding  on  organic  matter.  Nor  is  the  difficulty  set 
aside  by  the  fact  that  the  mechanical  movements  of  some 
"sensitive  plants"  are  not  distinguishable  from  those  of  some 
animals  which  lack  a  nervous  system  ;  nor  by  the  further 
fact  that  the  fungi  constitute  a  class  of  vegetables  which,  like 
animals,  feed  on  organisms.  To  natural  science  the  origin 
of  animal  life  is  still  a  matter  of  speculation,  not  of  knowl- 
edge. 

{b)  The  Darwinian  theory  of  Natural  Selection  is  based  on 
the  observed  tendency  of  species  to  variation.  It  is  claimed 
that,  during  the  struggle  for  existence  in  former  ages,  those 
varieties  survived  which  were  fittest  to  their  environment, 
and  that  the  slow  accumulation  of  differences  produced  new 
species.  This  theory  is  widely  felt  to  be  open  to  the  ob- 
jections : 

[aa)  The  tendency  to  variation  has  not  produced  a  clearly 
new  animal  species  since  man  appeared  upon  the  earth. 

{bb)  Few  variations  afford  any  advantage  in  the  struggle 
for  existence. 

{cc)  Varieties  show  a  tendency  to  infertility  as  departure 
from  the  type  of  their  species  becomes  marked.  The  actual 
tendency  is  to  revert  to  type. 

{dd)  Persistence  of  type  is  further  illustrated  by  the  ina- 
bility of  animal  hybrids  to  perpetuate  a  breach  in  species. 

{c)  The  theory  of  Gradual  Evolution  self-guided,  upon  the 


92  CREATION 

whole,  toward  improvement  of  species  is  liable  in  common 
with  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection,  to  the  objections  : 

(aa)  Sudden  changes  in  the  earth's  crust  have  destroyed 
many  forms  of  life  and  been  followed  by  long  periods  of  quiet, 
during  which  species  at  first  rapidly  multiplied  and  afterward 
gradually  became  fewer. 

{bb)  The  want  of  transitional  forms  is  too  marked  to  war- 
rant in  all  cases  the  hypothesis  of  a  gradual  evolution.  This 
want  is  greater  among  fossils  than  at  present,  when  new  spe- 
cies are  not  beyond  question  formed.  For  example,  the  am- 
phioxus  or  lancelet  is  a  living  form  intermediate  between  ver- 
tebrates and  mollusks,  and  the  ornithorhynchus,  or  duck-bill, 
is  a  link  between  saurians  and  mammals ;  but  neither  of 
these,  nor  any  other  transitional  form  leading  up  either  to 
vertebrates  or  to  mammals,  is  found  among  fossils. 

To  escape  these  objections,  the  theory  has  been  proposed 
of— 

{d)  Heterogenesis,  or  descent  of  species  by  sudden  leaps, 
or  modifications  in  embryo,  somewhat  after  the  analogy  of 
certain  lower  orders  of  animals,  like  the  tape-worm  or  the 
plant-louse.  But  facts  cannot  be  quoted  for  the  possibility 
of  such  changes ;  because — 

{aa)  In  all  existing  cases  heterogenesis  proceeds  in  a  circle, 
always  reproducing  the  original  parental  form. 

{bb)  The  arrest  of  the  series  at  one  of  the  intermediate 
points  would  be  a  degradation  of  species  ;  whereas,  the  pro- 
traction of  embryological  life  until  a  higher  species  than  that 
of  the  parents  is  formed  is  wholly  without  example  or  any- 
thing analogous  to  example. 

(e)  The  theory  of  Primitive  Generation,  denying  all  deri- 
vation of  species  from  species,  whether  slowly  or  suddenly, 
affirms  that  primitive  germs  developed  indifferently  into  forms 


THE   FINAL  CAUSE   IN  CREATION  93 

which  had  only  the  characteristics  common  both  to  plants 
and  animals ;  that  from  these  were  evolved  forms  representa- 
tive in  turn  of  the  larger  divisions  in  each  kingdom,  of  classes, 
orders,  genera,  and  that  these  last  produced  the  various  and 
unalterable  species. 

But  this  bold  theory  has  little  in  its  favor  except  its 
boldness. 

The  difficulties  attending  a  naturalistic  evolution  of  man 
are  deferred  to  the  doctrine  of  his  creation.  Meantime  it  is 
distinctly  probable  that,  while  the  greater  number  of  species 
have  been  developed  from  other  species.  Divine  interposition 
was  required  at  the  opening  of  the  several  periods  when  the 
most  important  transitions  took  place. 

§  17.  The  Final  Cause  in  Creation. 

It  is  necessary  to  believe  that  God,  as  a  rational  Being,  had 
some  ultimate  purpose  in  creation.  That  all-inclusive  pur- 
pose must  comply  with  an  important  moral  condition  :  it  must 
be  wide  enough  to  cover  the  counter-processes  of  good  and 
evil  ;  it  must  be  intimately  connected  with  what  passes 
under  our  view,  and  yet,  like  the  sun  amid  its  planets,  remote 
enough  to  serve  as  a  common  center  for  these  apparently 
erratic  movements. 

We  are  met  also  by  a  metaphysical  condition,  the  singular 
paradox  that  the  self-sufficiency  of  the  all-perfect  One  would 
bar  every  motive  for  the  creation  which  makes  him  known. 
We  find  a  universe  demanding  a  Cause,  a  Cause  precluding 
a  universe.  The  only  end  which  seems  not  wholly  incom- 
patible with  the  divine  perfectness  is  the  normal  desire  of 
God  to  employ  his  powers  and  to  see  a  reflection  of  himself 
in  his  works.  But  the  activity  of  God  constitutes  in  large 
part  his  blessedness,  and  the  reflection  of  his  attributes  is  his 


94  I^E  FINAt  CAUSE  IN  CREATION 

declarative,  as  distinguished  from   his  essential,  glory.     So 
that  we  conclude — 

1.  The  final  cause  of  the  creation  is  the  blessedness  and 
glory  of  God.  Uniting  these  two  ends  we  may  say  that  God 
made  all  things  primarily  for  himself. 

This  is  distinctly  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  God  cared 
for  his  ancient  people  "for  his  own  sake"  (Isa.  37  :  35  ;  43  : 
25  ;  Ezek.  20  :  9) ;  he  teaches  inspired  men  to  ask  blessings 
"  for  his  name's  sake  "  (Ps.  2  5  :  1 1  ;  3 1  :  3  ;  Dan.  9  :  19),  and 
makes  even  the  wrath  of  his  enemies  to  praise  him  (Ps.  76  : 
10  ;  46  :  10  ;  Rom.  9  :  17).  The  glory  of  the  Father  was  the 
aim  of  Christ  (John  12:  28;  17:  i,  4);  and  Paul  taught 
Christians,  "  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God  " 
(i  Cor.  10  :  31). 

If  it  be  objected  that  all-engrossing  selfishness  is  thus  at- 
tributed to  God,  we  reply — 

{a)  The  objector  needs  to  exalt  his  conception  of  God 
until  the  Supreme  Being  attains  in  his  view  a  worth  so  high 
that  he  cannot  fitly  make  any  object  other  than  his  own 
glory  his  end,  or  any  criterion  except  his  own  preference  his 
guide. 

(^)  The  blessedness  and  glory  of  God  are  the  only  com- 
plete security  for  the  well-being  of  the  creature.  We  there- 
fore notice — 

2.  The  secondary  object  of  God  in  creation  is  to  confer 
benefits  on  sentient  beings,  in  particular  upon  man.  This  is 
assured  by  the  facts  : 

{a)  If  the  Creator  seeks  blessedness  in  normal  activity,  he 
must  find  exercise  for  his  justice  and  benevolence  ;  but  these 
contemplate  what  is  suitable  and  beneficial  to  his  creatures. 


.  CONSERVATION  95 

{b)  The  full  glory  of  God  is  reflected  in  rational  beings 
only  when  they  are  most  like  himself ;  and  thus  to  secure  his 
own  glory  is  to  provide  for  their  highest  advantage. 

{c)  The  song  of  the  angels  at  the  birth  of  our  Lord  an- 
nounced the  union  of  glory  to  God  with  blessing  to  men 
(Luke  2  :  14). 

§  18.  Conservation. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  the  source  of  existence  is  also  its 
supporter.  In  some  passages  creation  and  conservation  are 
so  closely  associated  as  to  intimate  that  the  latter  office  is 
involved  in  the  former  (Acts  17  :  28  ;  cf.  Neh.  9:6;!  Cor. 
^:6\  Col.  I  :  16,  17  ;  Heb.  i  :  2,  3  ;  2  Peter  3  :  5,  7).  It  is 
easy  to  believe  that  to  keep  things  from  lapsing  into  nothing 
is  akin  to  bringing  them  into  being  out  of  nothing. 

The  nature  of  the  relation  by  virtue  of  which  God  main- 
tains all  being  and  forces  has  not  been  revealed  and  is  not  to 
be  discovered.  Opinion  always  tends  either  to  a  pantheistic 
identification,  or  to  a  deistic  isolation,  of  the  Creator  and 
creation.  At  present  the  movement  is  strongly  toward  a 
pantheistic  or  semi-pantheistic  account.  Theories  of  conser- 
vation may  be  classed  as  monistic  and  dualistic. 

I.    MONISTIC  THEORIES. 

These  teach  that  there  is  but  one  substance  in  the  uni- 
verse ;  accordingly,  matter  and  mind  are  essentially  identical, 
and  unless  the  existence  of  God  is  denied,  this  one  substance 
is  divine. 

I.  The  typical  Pantheistic  theory,  denying  any  real  per- 
sonality in  God,  regards  all  the  processes  of  nature  and  of 
human  history  as  a  self-evolution  of  the  One  who  is  the  all. 
That  all-embracing  Being  is  conceived  either  as  absolute  Idea, 
which  ultimately  comes  to  light  as  reason  knowing  itself,  or 


96  CONSERVATION 

as  indeterminate  Substance,  a  "  two-faced  entity  "  which,  in 
exhibiting  the  property  of  extension,  appears  as  matter,  or, 
in  exhibiting  the  property  of  thought,  appears  as  mind  ;  which 
in  man  first  attains  to  consciousness,  and  in  Christ,  as  some 
pantheists  admit,  first  knows  itself  as  God. 

This  theory  cannot  claim  to  be  scriptural.  It  decidedly 
antagonizes  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  the  true  personality  of 
God  and  man,  of  God's  priority  to  his  works  and  of  his  dis- 
tinctness from  them.  That  God  is  distinct  from  the  world 
and  that  he  is  a  person  are  the  warp  and  the  woof  of  bibli- 
cal theology.  The  Bible  makes  the  universe  depend  upon 
God  ;  pantheism  makes  God  depend  upon  the  universe. 

2.  A  patitheisni  zvhich  claims  to  be  Christian  and  has  gained 
some  degree  of  credence,  insists  that  God  is  the  only  sub- 
stance in  the  universe,  but  affirms  his  personality.  The  chief 
grounds  on  which  it  is  maintained  are — 

A.  Philosophical. 

{a)  Reason  demands  unity  in  the  substance,  that  there 
may  be  unity  in  the  system,  of  the  universe. 

{b)  Things  become  known  only  through  force  resident  in 
them  ;  therefore,  we  know  only  force,  and  matter  is  presum- 
ably only  a  congeries  of  atomic  forces  ;  but  force  is  spiritual, 
so  that  matter  and  spirit  are  essentially  one. 

{c)  There  is  unbroken  continuity  between  cause  and  effect ; 
therefore  matter  and  mind,  which  constantly  produce  effects 
on  each  other,  must  be  one  continuous  substance,  and  the 
First  Cause  must  be  identical  with  the  universe.  To  causa- 
tion without  us  corresponds — 

{d)  The  causal  process  within  us.  The  mind  creates  its 
own  volitions,  and  these  direct  the  body.  In  thus  e.xerting 
its  own  energy  the  mind  discovers  a  type  of  all  energy,  and 
necessarily  refers  all  efficient  cause  to  will.     All  that  occurs 


CONSERVATION  97 

in  nature  is  therefore  the  direct  result  of  divine  volition  be- 
come habitual. 

But  monism  secures  unity  of  system  at  cost  of  the  facts. 
For — 

(i)  To  say  that,  because  we  know  matter  only  through  its 
forces  therefore  we  know  only  force,  is  to  overlook  that  we 
know  force  only  through  the  motions  of  matter/  This  is 
true  alike  of  masses  and  of  atoms. 

(2)  If  matter  and  mind  were  but  different  forms  of  one 
substance,  they  might  conceivably  be  converted  into  each 
other ;  whereas  physicists  admit  that  not  even  their  energies 
are  interconvertible.  Now,  since  convertibility  prevails  be- 
tween all  energies,  it  is  certain  that  the  mind  is  not  the  seat 
of  energy,  but  of  a  wholly  incomprehensible  ability  to  control 
the  body's  energy.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  a  dif- 
ferent relation  exists  between  God  and  the  universe ;  in 
whatever  way  he  maintains  it,  neither  its  substance  nor  its 
energy  is  divine. 

B.   Scientific. 

(a)  Science  has  vindicated,  and  unhesitatingly  builds  upon, 
that  unity  in  the  system  of  the  universe  which  reason  tries 
to  make  out  by  aid  of  philosophy ;  the  laws  of  matter  and  of 
mind  are  in  strictest  accord.  Monism  infers  that  matter  and 
mind  are  of  one  substance. 

(d)  All  monistic  schemes  are  thoroughly  evolutionistic ; 
hence  monism  claims  the  support  that  science  now  accords  to 
evolution.      The  creation  and  conservation  of  the  universe 

^  We  are  acquainted  with  matter  only  as  that  which  may  have  energy  com- 
municated to  it  from  other  matter,  and  which  may,  in  its  turn,  communicate  energy 
to  other  matter.  Energy,  on  the  other  hand,  we  know  only  as  that  which,  in  all 
natural  phenomena,  is  continually  passing  from  one  portion  of  matter  to  another. 
.  .  .  Energy  cannot  exist  except  in  connection  with  matter. — ■_/.  C/eri  Max- 
well, "  Matter  and  Motion^'  pp.  164-5. 

I 


98  CONSERVATION 

thus  become  at  once  natural  and  supernatural.  To  these 
arguments  we  reply — 

(i)  The  unity  of  the  universe  is  in  its  source.  That  matter 
and  mind  have  one  Creator  fully  accounts  for  the  accord  of 
their  laws ;  and  this  explanation  is  free  from  the  insurmount- 
able objection  to  monism ;  namely,  that  matter  and  mind 
have  not  a  single  property  in  common,  and  can  be  described 
only  by  denying  of  one  everything,  except  that  they  exist. 
To  act  is  not  the  same  in  both. 

(2)  The  evidence  is  against  a  spontaneous  origination  of 
life,  and  against  the  evolution  of  all  organic  species  without 
any  special  divine  intervention. 

C.  Theological. 

A  theological  rather  than  a  biblical  support  is  claimed  for 
monism  in  the  improvement  which  it  is  thought  to  make  in 
Christian  doctrine.  Thus  to  monism  creation  did  not  take 
place  "  out  of  nothing,"  but  was  God's  presentation  of  him- 
self in  new  form  ;  conservation  becomes  a  phase  of  the  Di- 
vine self-existence,  instead  of  the  support  of  alien  substances  ; 
incarnation  was  a  full  revelation  of  the  essential  divinity  of 
all  things ;  atonement  was  a  provision,  justification  and  re- 
generation an  achievement,  within  the  Godhead  in  its  own 
behalf ;  while  belief  that  three  divine  persons  are  one  God 
forbids  the  trinitarian  to  deny  the  possibility  of  innumerable 
human  personalities  in  God. 

Objections  to  the  theology  of  monism  are — 

(1)  In  effect,  it  makes  matter  essentially  divine  and  there- 
fore eternal,  which  is  counter  to  the  intimations  of  both 
science  and  Scripture. 

(2)  Against  monism  as  a  theory  of  conservation  the  script- 
ural objection  to  typical  pantheism  here  recurs  :  the  Bible 
does  not  represent  the  Supporter  as  the  supported. 


CONSERVATION 


99 


(3)  The  ego  is  too  well  assured  of  its  substantiality,  its  dis- 
tinctness from  the  non-ego,  its  freedom  and  its  sinfulness,  to 
accept  a  resolution,  in  any  sense  or  degree,  of  its  substance 
and  its  self-determinations  into  those  of  God.' 

(4)  Postponing  discussion  of  soteriological  doctrines,  we 
may  here  remind  the  trinitarian  monist  that,  in  order  to 
meet  unitarian  objections,  orthodoxy  has  always  had  to  take 
the  ground  that  more  than  one  person  in  one  substance  is 
possible  to  the  Infinite  alone ;  and  we  cannot  now  apply  to 
our  own  experience  that  which  is  admissible  only  because 
its  sphere  is  outside  our  experience. 

II.    DUALISTIC    THEORIES. 

These  teach  that  matter  and  mind  are  essentially  different, 
but  that  God  made  and  upholds  them  both. 

I.  A  kind  of  dynamic  pantheism  is  proposed  by  some  who 
shrink  from  declaring  the  substance  of  the  universe  divine. 
In  its  scholastic  form  it  was  a  doctrine  of  creatio  co7itinnata, 
that  God  supports  the  universe  by  a  continual  exercise  of  cre- 
ative energy.  In  its  modern  form  it  is  a  theory  of  the  di- 
vine immanence,  and  holds  either  that  the  whole  energy  of 
the  universe  is  divine,  or  that  all  physical  motion  is  directly 
due  to  divine  activity,  while  the  spirit  of  man  is  self- 
moved. 

{a)  To  continuous  creation  the  objection  holds  that  it  denies 
all  causal  relation  between  successive  states  of  things.     To 

^  Monism  shows  opposite  tendencies ;  it  tends  to  exalt  the  nature,  but  also  to  de- 
preciate the  personality  of  man ;  it  makes  him  divine  in  essence,  yet  less  important 
as  an  individual.  One  of  these  tendencies  may  prevail  against  the  other.  Thus 
the  theology  which  regards  all  force  as  divine  has  not  infrequently,  both  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  set  up  high  claims  for  freedom  of  the  human  will.  In  such 
cases  it  is  more  concerned  to  emphasize  the  divinity  of  man's  nature  than  to  make 
light,  as  quite  as  logically  it  might,  of  his  personality;  metaphysical  consistency  is 
sacrificed  to  a  theological  interest. 


100  CONSERVATION 

refer  these  states  to  divine  causation  is  to  set  aside  the  dis- 
tinct testimony  of  self-consciousness  and  observation  that 
the  causal  nexus  binds  together  the  successive  states  them- 
selves ;  and  thus  our  belief  in  causation  itself  would  be  re- 
duced to  a  delusion. 

(b)  Dynamic  resolves  into  substantive  pantheism.  To  re 
gard  all  force  as  divine  is  to  make  all  substance  divine.  On 
the  one  hand,  all  cognizable  properties  of  matter  are  due  to 
force ;  if  then  force  is  divine,  matter  has  the  property  of  di- 
vinity. On  the  other  hand,  since  force  has  no  known  or  con- 
ceivable existence  apart  from  matter,  then  matter,  on  the  ex- 
istence of  which  divine  force  is  dependent,  cannot  itself  be 
less  than  divine.  This  objection  applies,  whether  or  not 
man  is  regarded  as  self-moved. 

2.  Deism  taught  that  God,  in  creating  the  universe,  en- 
dowed it  with  self-maintaining  substance,  forces,  and  laws ; 
hence  all  events  in  the  history  of  things  and  men  have  come 
about  without  divine  interference.  Natural  science  cannot 
raise  any  conclusive  objection  to  this  theory,  but — 

{a)  The  theistic  student  of  nature  finds  a  weighty  pre- 
sumption against  it  in  the  mysterious  and  apparently  spirit- 
ual nature  of  force,  and  is  predisposed  rather  to  a  panthe- 
istic view. 

{b)  The  deistic  theory  virtually  denies  that  God  preserves 
the  universe,  and  it  could  not  be  mistaken  for  a  scriptural 
representation  of  this  divine  office. 

3.  Conciirsns  of  divine  energy  with  natural  forces,  in  the 
sense  that  the  former  perpetuates  and  directs  the  latter, 
represents  God  as  immanent  and  active  in  all  things,  but 
identified  with  none.  This  was  a  favorite  explanation  of 
scholastics,  and  is  probably  the  popular  view.  Indeed,  if  th* 
toregoing  theories  are  rejected,  conservation  must  be  repre- 


PROVIDENCE  lOI 

sented  under  the  form  of  a  concursns,  or  not  at  all.  It  is 
wisest  to  frame  no  theory  as  to  a  matter  on  which  both  the 
Bible  and  science  are  silent. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that,  while  the  autonomy  of  nature  is 
so  analogous  to  the  freedom  of  human  will  as  to  commend 
the  deistic  theory  to  some  early  Arminians,  monism,  on  the 
contrary,  logically  involves  a  necessitarianism  more  rigorous 
than  any  surviving  Calvinistic  scheme, 

§  19.  Providence. 

God  not  only  maintains  all  things  in  existence,  but  he  di- 
rects all  things  toward  the  ends  for  which  he  made  them. 
And,  since  his  own  glory  and  blessedness  are  secured  through 
the  well-being  of  his  creatures,  the  divine  providence  is  not 
improperly  conceived  as  in  effect  his  care  for  his  creatures, 
in  particular  for  man.  Providence  is  distinguished  as  Gen- 
eral and  Particular. 

I.  GENERAL    PROVIDENCE. 

The  provision  which  God  in  his  government  of  the  world 
makes  for  the  human  race  as  a  whole,  or  for  nations  and  com- 
munities, is  his  general  providence. 

Evidence  of  general  providence  is  furnished — 

1.  By  the  Old  Testament  expressions  of  interest  in  the 
Hebrew  people,  and  by  the  New  Testament  account  of  what 
God  has  done,  yet  does,  and  will  do  in  behalf  of  his  church 
and  of  mankind. 

2.  Events  which  history  adduces  in  proof  of  the  existence 
of  God  equally  attest  his  general  providence. 

3.  To  patriotism  public  interests  so  transcend  private  that 
it  is  frequently  attended  by  solemn  and  religious  exaltation  of 
feeling,  and  those  who  do  not  pray  for  themselves  invoke  the 


I02  PROVIDENCE 

intervention  of  the  Almighty  for  a  cause  which  seems  to  them 
not  unworthy  of  his  care. 

II.    PARTICULAR    PROVIDENCE. 

Particular  or  special  providence  is  the  divine  care  over  in- 
dividuals. It  covers  all  our  personal  interests,  as  well  as 
those  of  God's  own  kingdom  so  far  as  the  individual  can  affect 
these,  and  has  regard  to  the  minutest  conditions  involved, 
physical  as  well  as  spiritual.  The  name  of  "  special  provi- 
dence "  is  restricted  to  a  conspicuous  show  of  divine  care, 
but  represents  no  distinction  except  of  impressiveness. 

Proof  of  particular  providence  may  be  found  in — 

1.  The  Scriptures.     These  testify  that — 

(a)  The  favor  of  God  toward  the  Hebrew  people  was  largely 
due  to  his  love  for  an  individual  patriarch,  judge,  or  king. 

{b)  The  New  Testament  characteristically  assures  every 
man  that  he  enjoys  continually  the  special  care  of  God. 

(c)  Certain  texts  explicitly  state  that  God  attends  to  the 
smallest  details  (Ps.  37  :  23-25  ;  Prov.  16  19,  33  ;  Matt.  10  : 
29-31  ;  Luke  12  :  22-30  ;  Rom.  8  :  28). 

2.  General  providence  includes  many  particulars.  It  is 
true  that  the  interests  of  some  individuals  might  conceivably 
be  disregarded,  as  soldiers  must  perish  if  victory  is  to  be 
won  ;  but  an  abundant  compensation  is  assured  to  every  right- 
eous man  for  any  sacrifice  which  God  exacts  for  the  com- 
mon weal  (Mark  8:35;   10  :  29,  30). 

It  is  especially  noteworthy  that  movements  of  the  highest 
importance  in  history  turn  on  the  training  and  fortunes  of 
individuals.  The  names  of  Moses  and  Paul,  of  Luther  and 
Judson  in  the  Church,  of  Charlemagne  and  Mirabeau,  of 
Washington  and  Lincoln  in  the  State,  suggest  that,  whatever 


PROVIDENCE  103 

might  have  been  accomplished  apart  from  these  men,  momen- 
tous issues  hung  upon  their  life  or  death, 

3.  If  general  providence  is  the  more  credible  to  the  irreli- 
gious, to  the  believer  particular  providence  is  a  matter  of 
experience.  A  wise  and  trustful  spirit  recognizes  continually 
the  guiding  hand  of  a  Heavenly  Father. 

III.    THEORIES    OF    PROVIDENCE. 

These  are  closely  related  to  those  of  conservation,  and  are 
not  more  satisfactory. 

1.  A  modification  of  the  Deistic  theory  is  that  God  provided 
in  the  original  constitution  of  things  for  every  contingency 
which  would  arise.     But — 

ia)  The  constitution  of  the  universe  could  not  furnish  either 
the  Holy  Spirit  or  divine  forgiveness,  in  answer  to  prayer. 
These  gifts  are  always  special  interventions. 

{b)  Nor  is  it  easy  to  believe  that  God  has  placed  the  uni- 
verse beyond  his  own  reach. 

2.  Pantheism  really  excludes  divine  providence,  for  it 
regards  all  processes  as  an  unforeseen  and  necessary  develop- 
ment. Or,  if  any  unconscious  bent  of  nature  toward  progress 
is  affirmed,  this  is  but  a  blind  sort  of  general  providence,  which 
subordinates  each  stage  of  the  process  to  the  stages  that  fol- 
low, and  in  a  manner  cares  for  the  whole  at  cost  of  the  parts. 

3.  Creatio  continnata,  or  an  extreme  theory  of  divine  im- 
manence, theoretically  involves  incessant  direction  of  nature ; 
but— 

{a)  In  effect  it  acknowledges  only  natural  processes,  for  it 
identifies  the  divine  activity  with  the  natural.     Hence — 

ip)  This  theory,  like  that  of  predestinated  provision,  fur- 
nishes no  basis  for  an  adequate  account  of  prayer. 

4.  Coneursus,  or  co-operation  of  divine  with  natural  forces, 


I04  PROVIDENCE 

also  looks  to  steady  intervention.  Thus  God  makes  natme 
do  continually  what  it  would  not.  But  the  objection  to  it  is 
the  reverse  of  that  to  continuous  creation — 

(a)  It  leaves  no  place  for  the  regular  exhibition  of  natural 
law.  This  objection  does  not  lie  against  it  as  a  theory  of 
conservation,  but  as  a  theory  of  providence,  that  is,  as  an  ac- 
count of  God's  direction  of  all  natural  events  to  the  service 
of  his  will.  Observation  does  not  tolerate  an  account  of  the 
course  of  nature  which  requires  it  to  be  deflected  as  continu- 
ously as  would  be  necessary  if  all  special  providences  were 
special  interruptions. 

It  might,  indeed,  be  alleged  that  God  would  rule  over 
nature  and  man  according  to  an  order  prescribed  by  the  con- 
stitution of  his  own  mind.     But — 

(i>)  Such  is  the  order  of  nature  itself.  The  theory  on  this 
supposition  is  embarrassed  by  ascribing  to  divine  overruling 
precisely  what  it  needs  no  overruling  to  bring  to  pass.  This 
is,  of  course,  prohibited  by  the  law  of  parsimony. 

5.  So  large  a  proportion  of  human  events  is  determined  by 
the  will  of  man,  that  the  range  of  divine  providence  has  been 
restricted  by  another  theory  to  the  injliience  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  human  viind  and  heart. 

It  is  certain  that  the  Christian  has  been  taught  to  look  for 
such  guidance  ;  but  as  a  rationale  of  divine  providence  this 
theory  docs  not  provide  for  the  facts  : 

{a)  Mind  is  so  related  to  matter  that,  in  order  to  control 
over  either,  the  other  must  be  controlled. 

{b)  While  the  Divine  Spirit  certainly  introduces  order  into 
the  moral  sphere,  and  does  this  through  the  instrumentality 
of  ideas,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  how  he  could  bring 
anything  but  confusion  into  the  mental  sphere  if  he  interferes 
with  the  natural  movement  of  thought  to  the  extent  which 


PRAYER 


105 


this  theory  asserts  as  to  mind,  but  denies  to  be  admissible  as 
to  matter.  Assuredly  it  cannot  be  admitted  that  the  laws  of 
thought  are  less  inviolable  than  the  laws  of  things. 

Without  venturing  a  theory  about  matters  clearly  beyond 
explication,  it  may  be  possible  to  find  in  each  theory  as  much 
to  approve  as  to  condemn.  With  the  deist  we  can  believe 
that  most  events  which  the  providence  of  God  brings  about 
might  be  assured  by  pre-arrangement ;  with  the  pantheist  and 
the  semi-pantheist  we  may  well  refuse  to  accept  the  isolation 
of  God  from  his  works  ;  with  the  believer  in  concursus  we 
may  recognize  the  reality  of  natural  substances  and  forces 
without  debarring  the  Maker  from  control  over  them ;  and 
with  the  advocate  of  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  events,  we 
may  welcome  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  large  in  the 
affairs  of  men.  But  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  all  provi- 
dential aids  in  any  one  of  these  ways,  or  to  accept  either  of 
them  as  a  clear  path  through  the  mystery  of  God's  dealings 
with  the  world  and  with  its  inhabitants. 

§  20.  Prayer. 

Prayer  asks  the  favor  and  help  of  God  in  the  spiritual  and 
in  the  secular  concerns  of  man. 

In  addition  to  the  difficulties  met  in  the  doctrine  of  provi- 
dence, the  doctrine  of  prayer  faces  the  further  question  how 
an  all-wise  and  unchangeable  Sovereign  can  be  affected  by 
the  petitions  of  men. 

Taking  for  granted  as  too  familiar  to  need  proof  that  the 
Scriptures  encourage  men  at  all  times  to  pray,  and  postpon- 
ing to  another  division  of  theology  inquiry  as  to  the  inter- 
cession of  Christ  and  the  office  of  faith  for  those  who  pray, 
we  notice  here : 


I06  PRAYER 

I.    THE    RELATION    OF    PRAYER    TO    SPIRITUAL    BENEFITS. 

No  reason  can  be  given  for  supposing  that  this  relation  is 
outside  the  domain  of  law.  The  contrary  is  shown  by  the 
scriptural  warnings :  "  If  I  regard  iniquity  in  my  heart,  the 
Lord  will  not  hear  me"  (Ps.  66  :  i8);  "Ye  ask  and  receive 
not,  because  ye  ask  amiss"  (James  4  :  3).  Clearly,  the  effi- 
cacy of  prayer  is  limited  by  moral  propriety,  ' 

The  most  general  law  of  prayer  was  stated  by  our  Lord : 
"Every  one  that  asketh  receiveth  "  (Matt.  7  :  8).  That  this 
is  not  an  arbitrary  appointment  but  is  an  indispensable  condi- 
tion of  receiving  spiritual  benefits,  is  plain. 

(a)  Spiritual  benefits  must  at  least  be  desired,  or  they  can- 
not be  accepted  when  offered ;  and  desire  for  benefits  from 
God  is  the  essence  of  prayer.  A  prayer  is  revoked  by  a 
changing  desire. 

[d)  The  normal  relation  to  God  involves  consciousness  of 
dependence  upon  him.  The  more  he  is  to  us,  the  deeper  our 
felt  need  of  him.  To  lack  the  sense  of  dependence  is  of  itself 
to  repel  spiritual  good. 

(r)  Our  Lord  teaches  us  that  the  heart  of  God  is  amen- 
able to  the  appeal  of  trust  (Luke  11  :  5-13  ;  cf.  Matt.  7  :  11). 
Neither  articulate  nor  even  self-understood  longing  is  requi- 
site. Though  "  we  know  not  what  to  pray  for  as  we  ought, 
the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings 
which  cannot  be  uttered.  And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh 
intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God " 
(Rom.  8  :  26,  27). 

Indeed,  so  obvious  is  the  connection  between  asking  and 
obtaining  spiritual  good,  that  the  benefits  of  prayer  are  by 
some  ascribed  solely  to  its  reflex  influence. 


PRAYER  107 

But  this  extreme  attempt  to  remove  God  from  our  reach, 
and  us  from  the  reach  of  God,  is  warranted  neither  by  Script- 
ure nor  by  Christian  experience.  The  moral  re-action  of 
prayer  may  be  one  of  the  means,  yet  is  not  the  only  means, 
employed  in  answering  prayer.  Forgiveness,  adoption,  re- 
generation, are  not  the  accumulated  results  made  upon  the 
petitioner  by  a  series  of  his  own  prayers  ;  they  are  distinctly 
acts  of  God. 

II.  THE  RELATION  OF  PRAYER  TO  TEMPORAL  BENEFITS. 

This  relation  is  too  obscure  to  be  explained.  So  far  as  the 
interests  of  the  body  and  estate  are  promoted  by  peace  of 
mind,  by  purity,  and  by  moral  vigor,  the  utility  of  prayer  for 
temporal  good  is  as  clear  as  that  of  prayer  for  spiritual  good. 
But  so  far  as  benefits  can  reach  us  only  through  providential 
furtherance,  the  utility  of  prayer  for  temporal  blessings  is 
obscure  as  the  method  of  divine  providence. 

Many  have  urged  that  the  Creator  provided  some  unknown 
natural  agents  as  his  own  means  of  directing  nature,  just  as 
the  use  of  other  natural  agents  is  open  to  man.  Others  have 
preferred  the  supposition  that  in  the  original  ordering  of  the 
universe  the  temporal  good  we  desire  was  timed  to  arrive  just 
when  we  should  ask  for  it.  But  while  neither  of  these  pro- 
visions is  impossible,  neither  can  be  certified,  and  the  second 
is  of  the  mechanical,  deistical  sort  which  finds  little  favor  in 
any  quarter  to-day. 

But  we  need  not  doubt  that  God  has  an  indulgent  regard 
for  the  desires  of  those  who  love  him.  It  is  right  to  lay  all 
our  innocent  wishes  before  God,  without  feeling  bound  to 
decide  for  him  whether  it  would  be  well  to  gratify  us  (Phil.  4  : 
6).  We  may  and  should  accept  the  assurance  of  Christ,  "  If 
ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in  you,  ye  shall  ask  what 


I08  MIRACLES 

ye  will  and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you  "  (John  15  :  7),  with 
such  limitation  only  as  he  laid  upon  his  own  petition,  "  Not 
my  will  but  thine  be  done  "  (Matt.  26  :  39,  42,  44  ;  cf.  Heb. 
5:7;  Luke  11:2). 

§  21.  Miracles. 

God  has  seen  fit  from  time  to  time  to  claim  the  attention 
of  men  by  those  extraordinary  manifestations  of  his  power 
and  purpose  generally  called  Miracles. 

L    THEIR    NATURE. 

A  miracle  is  a  phenomenon  apart  from  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature  and  unmistakably  due  to  superhuman  power.  A 
divine  miracle  is  manifestly  wrought  by  God.  Unless  an  ex- 
traordinary event  can  with  certainty  be  referred  to  a  power 
above  man's,  it  cannot  be  distinguished  from  a  prodigy  or 
from  jugglery,  and  its  miraculous  character  must  be  denied. 

Although  a  miracle  is  such  an  event  as  natural  agencies 
could  not  of  themselves  produce,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is 
either  a  violation  or  a  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature.  We 
have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  all  the  forces  which  are  con- 
cerned with  the  object  upon  which  a  miracle  is  wrought  are 
operative  according  to  their  several  laws  ;  and,  if  the  usual 
effect  is  not  seen,  this  is  because  those  normally  working 
forces  are  counteracted  by  some  other  force,  either  natural  or 
supernatural,  applied  by  a  superhuman  will,  precisely  as  when 
artificial  results  are  wrought  by  man.  Miracle  is  divine  arti- 
fice. 

But  while  the  properties  and  forces  characteristic  of  an 
object  are  always  a  factor  in  the  result,  the  miracle  itself 
may  or  may  not  be  due  to  the  use  of  natural  means. 
When  a  wind  swept  the  Red  Sea  from  its  bed  and  back 
again  for  the  rescue  of  the  children  of  Israel,  the  obvious 


MIRACLES  109 

miracle  was  that  the  wind  obeyed  Moses  ;  but  no  known 
natural  agency  made  the  Jordan  part  at  the  touch  of  the 
priests'  feet.  So  to  the  notice  of  a  passer-by  the  miraculous 
drafts  of  fishes  might  be  the  gift  of  chance,  for  the  only 
certain  supernatural  element  in  the  case  was  the  Lord's 
knowledge  that  the  fish  would  be  caught ;  while,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  was  appar- 
ently due  to  creative  power  alone. 

It  follows  that  a  miracle  can  be  distinguished  from  a  special 
providence,  not  by  the  absence  of  natural  agencies,  but  only 
by  the  indubitable  presence  of  divine  agency. 

II.    CREDIBILITY    OF    MIRACLES. 

If  miracles  are  credible  it  is  because — 

1.  Miracles  are /^j-i-/^^/^.     Two  conditions  must  be  met : 
(a)  Power  capable  of  working  miracles  must  be  possible. 

So  far,  miracles  are  possible  if  the  existence  of  God  is  pos- 
sible. Were  his  existence  in  question,  the  occurrence  of 
miracles  would  set  that  question  at  rest. 

{b)  There  must  be  a  course  of  nature.  Without  a  rule 
there  can  be  no  exceptions,  without  a  natural  order  no 
miracles.  Otherwise,  supernatural  would  be  indistinguish- 
able from  natural  phenomena. 

2.  Miracles  were  probable  when  God  had  sufficient  reason 
for  revealing  himself  by  their  means.  Whether  they  are 
probable  now  can  better  be  considered  after  determining  their 
office. 

3.  Biblical  miracles  were  unmistakable  to  their  witjiesses. 
It  can  never  be  demonstrated  that  the  unknown  forces  of 
nature  are  incapable  of  working  any  result,  however  pro- 
digious. But  for  a  witness  of  the  Bible  miracles  to  explain 
them  in  this  way  would  be  the  infatuation  of  unbelief.     In 


no  MIRACLES 

such  cases  scepticism  would  be  credulity.     It  is  possible  to 
give  a  superstitious  credit  to  nature. 

4.  The  trustworthiness  of  the  witnesses  to  miracles  is  as- 
sured by  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Bible. 
That  records,  which  we  have  sufficient  reason  to  accept  as 
written  at  the  time  and  by  the  persons  alleged,  could  be  false 
is  rendered  incredible  by — 

{a)  The  notable  sobriety,  simplicity,  and  candor  which  guar- 
antee to  literary  criticism  the  honesty  of  the  writers  ;  and  it 
is  impossible,  if  they  were  spectators,  as  some  of  them  claim 
to  have  been,  that  they  could  merely  fancy  they  had  seen 
such  marvels  as  they  describe. 

(b)  The  absurdity  of  such  tales  in  the  face  of  a  generation 
which  knew  them  to  be  untrue. 

{c)  The  fact  that  no  other  great  religious  teacher  has  pre- 
tended to  miracles.  How  then  does  it  happen  that  Moses, 
Jesus,  and  Paul,  confessedly  the  chief  among  the  world's 
religious  guides,  claim  or  were  credited  with  wonders  which 
they  did  not  perform  .-' 

But  the  burden  of  proof  does  not  rest  on  the  Bible  alone. 
Extra-biblical  evidence  is  not  wanting.     For  example — 

5.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  at  once  the  best  attested 
and  the  all-attesting  miracle  of  Christianity.  Its  occurrence 
is  proved  by  the  existence  of  the  church,  of  its  ordinances, 
and  its  beliefs.  But  in  accepting  the  resurrection  of  our 
Lord  we  accept  his  divinity ;  and  with  his  divinity  all  the 
miracles  of  the  New  Testament  become  not  only  credible, 
but  indispensable.  If  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  he  must  prove 
it  beyond  reasonable  doubt. 

6.  The  congruity  of  the  miracles  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
lends  support  to  both.  But  this  theme  must  be  postponed 
until  we  have  determined  what  is — ' 


MIRACI,ES  III 

III.    THE    OFFICE    OF    MIRACLES. 

This  is  indicated  by  their  nature.  Unmistakably  wrought 
by  God,  miracles  necessarily  call  attention  to  him,  and  tend 
to  an  all-inclusive  end — namely,  to  establish  his  kingdom 
among  men. 

As  to  how  they  serve  this  purpose,  there  has  been  and  is 
no  little  dispute.  The  exegete  naturally  looks  for  a  deep  and 
varied  significance  in  the  miracles  ;  whereas,  the  expounder  of 
Christian  Evidences,  finding  miracles  a  stumbling-block  rather 
than  an  aid  to  faith  for  the  modern  sceptic,  seeks  to  show 
that  the  truth  of  doctrine  does  not  turn  on  the  acceptance 
of  miracles,  and  that  their  office  was  to  certify  a  messenger  to 
earlier  days,  not  to  intimate  nor  vindicate  his  message  to  our 
day. 

But  these  offices  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  A  miracle 
may  attest  a  messenger  and  also  convey  a  message  of  its  own ; 
it  may  be  in  itself  profoundly  significant,  yet  not  lose  its 
validity  as  a  credential.  That  these  two  offices  are  in  thor- 
ough accord  is  assured  by  the  fact  that  they  are  but  direct 
and  indirect  methods  of  approaching  the  same  end.  Under 
the  Old  Dispensation  the  method  of  miracles  was  for  the 
most  part,  but  not  solely,  direct ;  under  the  New  Dispensa- 
tion it  was  chiefly,  yet  far  from  exclusively,  indirect. 

I.  The  theocracy  was  a  kingdom  of  this  world,  and  its 
miracles  in  large  part  did  directly  the  work  of  carnal  weapons. 
The  plagues  which  compelled  Pharaoh  to  let  the  Hebrews  go, 
the  engulfing  of  their  pursuers,  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  to 
guide  them,  the  bread  from  heaven  on  which  they  fed,  the 
public  giving  of  the  law,  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  the  fall 
of  the  walls  of  Jericho,  the  series  of  miraculous  victories  by 
which  the  land  of  promise  was  won,  or  in  after  centuries 


112  MIRACLES 

held,  the  fire  from  heaven  upon  Elijah's  sacrifice  to  convince 
the  people  anew  that  Jehovah  was  God — all  these  served  the 
theocracy  in  the  directest  way. 

Under  the  New  Dispensation  the  kingdom  is  spiritual,  and 
such  was  the  intended  effect  of  its  miracles.  By  displaying 
the  kindness  of  God  in  the  healing  of  disease  and  the  feed- 
ing of  the  hungry  ;  by  drawing  faith  to  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  stilling  of  the  tempest ;  by  proving  his  right  to 
forgive  sins  in  the  healing  of  a  palsied  man  ;  by  revealing 
him  as  the  source  of  life  in  the  raising  of  Lazarus  ;  finally,  by 
establishing  his  own  divinity  and  assuring  our  justification  in 
the  miracle  of  his  rising,  miracles  were  so  far  a  direct  exposi- 
tion of  the  gospel,  and  contributed  immediately  to  the  reign 
of  grace  among  men. 

2.  But  they  also  fulfilled  their  office  indirectly  by  certify- 
ing or  by  preserving  a  messenger  of  God.  The  burning 
bush,  the  change  of  Moses'  rod  into  a  serpent,  the  budding 
of  Aaron's  rod,  the  test  of  a  wet  and  a  dry  fleece  granted  to 
Gideon,  the  security  of  Daniel  in  the  lions'  den — these  mira- 
cles either  furnished  the  times  with  a  prophet  or  served  as 
his  credentials. 

In  the  gospel  age,  so  far  as  miracles  attested  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  bore  a  divine  commission,  so  far  they  con- 
tributed but  mediately  to  the  new  kingdom.  This  is  all  that 
miracles  meant  to  Nicodemus  (John  3  :  2),  and  was  the 
utmost  that  Jesus  for  some  time  expected  the  Jews  to  learn 
from  them  (John  5  :  36).  Testimony  of  the  same  kind  was 
afforded  to  the  apostles  (Acts  15  :  12;  Heb.  2  :  4). 

In  some  cases  the  same  miracle  served  both  directly  and 
indirectly.  All  Israel  was  the  prophet  of  God,  and  every 
conspicuous  miracle  in  its  favor  claimed  a  hearing  for  its  testi- 
mony to  the  true  God.     Similarly  our  Lord  summoned  his 


MIRACLES 


113 


friend  from  the  grave  in  order  to  reveal  himself  to  Martha  as 
the  ruler  of  life,  but  with  a  view  to  win  from  the  Jews  merely 
an  admission  that  God  had  sent  him  and  would  hear  him 
when  he  prayed  (John  11  :  25,  42). 

IV.    CONGRUITY    OF    MIRACLES    WITH    DOCTRINE. 

Miracles,  whether  pretended  or  real,  always  correspond  to 
the  doctrine  of  those  who  perform  them.  This  is  because 
the  words  and  the  works  of  men  alike  represent  their  char- 
acter. It  is  a  fact  of  high  importance  in  studying  the  mira- 
cles of  Jesus. 

1 .  It  greatly  enhances  the  credibility  of  his  iniracles  alike  for 
his  age  and  for  ours ;  because  it  sharply  distinguishes  them 
from  diabolical  miracles,  from  magic,'  and  from  jugglery. 
Mischief  or  moral  emptiness  marks  the  latter ;  dignity  and 
deep  significance  characterize  the  former.  Revealing  at  once 
divine  goodness  and  power,  the  miracles  of  Jesus  illustrate 
the  good  tidings  which  he  brought.  If  this  correspondence 
were  lacking,  miracles  would  be  a  burden  to  faith  ;  its  pres- 
ence adapts  them  to  win  the  trust  of  both  simple  and  wise. 

2.  Conversely,  this  congruity  substafitiates  the  truth  of  our 
Lord's  teachings;  and  it  does  this  while  turning  away  the 
reproach  that  Christian  doctrine  is  too  unreasonable  to  be 
accepted  without  pretence  of  miracles.  It  is  not  unreason- 
able to  believe  that  God  is  willing  to  save  men  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  his  Son ;  we  can  even  find  something  becoming  to 
God  in  such  a  sacrifice  (Heb.  2  :  10)  ;  but  it  would  be  un- 
reasonable to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  unless 

>  Magic  pretended  to  be  both  science  and  art :  as  science,  it  claimed  occult 
knowledge ;  as  art,  it  claimed  to  control  preternatural  beings.  Miracle  is  neither 
science  nor  art.  It  is  wholly  superhuman,  for  it  is  granted  by  a  Being  superior  to 
man.     Spiritualistic  "  manifestations,"  if  superhuman,  are  magic,  not  miracles. 


114  MIRACLES 

he  wrought  miracles  significant  of  his  nature  and  mission 
(John  5:31,  36).  The  supernatural  basis  of  Christianity  re- 
quired a  supernatural  attestation  (John  20  :  30,  31). 

Argument  from  correspondence  of  miracles  to  doctrine  is 
not  arguing  in  a  circle,  but  appeals  to  a  mark  of  genuineness 
without  which  neither  miracles  nor  doctrines  would  be 
credible. 

3.  This  correspondence  throws  light  on  the  question 
whether  miracles  may  be  expected  in  the  present  age. 

(a)  It  shows  why  they  have  ceased.  Having  certified  the 
claims  of  Jesus,  miracles  may  well  leave  his  grace  to  com- 
mend itself  to  our  needs.  If  long  continued,  miracles  would 
have  ceased  to  be  signs  (John  6  :  26),  and  have  proved  a  dis- 
turbance and  a  demoralization  ;  the  spiritual  aims  of  Christi- 
anity would  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  degrading  hope  of 
leading  an  idle  life,  and  our  religion  itself  have  become  a 
gazing-stock.  The  evils  inseparable  from  wonder-working 
often  led  our  Lord  to  conceal  his  miracles  as  far  as  possible, 
and  furnished  reason  enough  why  he  should  not  again  show 
himself  to  the  world  after  his  resurrection.  The  same  grave 
consideration  led  Paul  to  turn  the  desires  of  the  Corinthians 
away  from  the  startling  gift  of  tongues  to  the  edifying  office 
of  prophecy.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  miracles 
continued  longer  than  necessary,  but  the  history  of  the 
church  shows  that  they  ceased  none  too  soon,  and  that  their 
return  is  not  to  be  desired  while  the  present  order  of  things 
endures. 

(^)  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  personal  reappearing  of 
our  Lord  is  near,  signs  and  wonders  are  again  to  be  looked 
for.  It  is  natural  that  belief  in  "faith  cures  "  as  supernatural 
interpositions  should  often  be  associated  with  expectation  of 
the  early  coming  of  Christ, 


ANGELS  115 

§  22.  Angels. 

The  Bible  makes  known  the  existence  of  a  class  of  beings 
superior  to  man  (Ps.  103  :  20 ;  Matt.  24  :  36);  in  essence 
spiritual  (Heb.  i  :  14) ;  in  origin  severally  created,  not  gen- 
erated (Matt.  22  :  30;  Col.  i  :  16);  immortal,  and  either 
holy  and  happy,  or  wicked  and  miserable  forever. 

Both  angels  and  demons  (or  devils)  are  clothed  with  a  mys- 
tery so  stimulating  to  imagination  that  they  became  in  for- 
mer times  a  theme  of  fantastic  speculation,  but  for  the  same 
reason  are  now  regarded  with  sceptical  indifference.  Neither 
kind  of  treatment  is  warranted  by  the  Scriptures,  which  are 
the  only  trustworthy  source  of  information. 

I.    GOOD    ANGELS. 

So  far  from  exhibiting  Oriental  fancifulness  when  treating 
of  angels,  the  Bible  shows  in  connection  with  no  other  topic 
a  more  veracious  simplicity,  or  more  divinely  guarded  reserve. 

1.  Although  sometimes  appearing  in  visions,  they  were  re- 
peatedly presented  to  the  senses,  and  not  infrequently  to  more 
than  one  person  at  once.  Angels  were  seen  and  heard  by 
Abraham  and  Sarah,  by  Lot  and  the  men  of  Sodom  (Gen. 
18,  19);  an  angel  withstood  Balaam,  first  invisibly,  then  vis- 
ibly and  audibly  (Num.  22  :  22-35);  the  angel  which  released 
Peter  from  prison  was  expressly  distinguished  by  him  from  a 
vision  (Acts  12  19,  11). 

2.  Ordinarily  they  are  represented  as  sent  only  to  some 
fiotable  person,  or  oti  some  momentous  errand.  Thus,  at  the 
burning  bush  the  angel  of  Jehovah  revealed  the  divine  name 
to  Moses,  and  commissioned  him  to  undertake  the  exodus 
(Exod.  3);  the  law  was  ordained  by  angels  (Gal.  3  :  19;  cf. 
Acts  7  :  53  ;  Heb.  2:2);  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant  an- 
nounced himself  as  captain  of  the  Lord's  host  when  Joshua 


no  ANGELS 

led  the  tribes  into  Canaan  (Josh.  5  :  13-15),  and  reappeared  at 
various  emergencies  in  the  history  of  Israel  (Judg.  6  :  11- 
23;  13  :  3-20;  2  Sam.  24  :  16;  2  Kings  19  :  35  ;  Dan  3  ; 
28  ;  6  :  22).  Angels  repeatedly  interposed  during  the  in- 
fancy of  the  church  (Acts  5  :  19  ;  8  :  26;  10  :  3-7  ;  12:7- 
II,  23. 

3.  Angels  were  7'eal  beings  to  Christ.  They  were  sent  on 
frequent  messages  in  connection  with  the  birth  of  our  Lord 
(Matt.  I  :  20-24 ;  2  :  1 3,  19 ;  Luke  i  :  1 1-20,  26-38  ;  2  :  9-1 5) ; 
they  ministered  to  Jesus  after  the  temptation  (Matt.  4:11), 
and  during  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  (Luke  22  :  43) ;  at- 
tended his  resurrection  (Matt.  28  :  2  ;  Luke  24  :  4,  23  ;  John 
20  :  12);  and  his  ascension  (Acts  i  :  10). 

4.  The  references  of  our  Lord  to  them  are  peculiarly  sig- 
nificant. His  protest  against  contempt  for  lowly  disciples 
(or  possibly  children)  was,  "  Their  angels  do  always  behold 
the  face  of  my  Father"  (Matt.  18  :  10).  In  order  to  correct 
gross  views  of  the  future  life  he  said,  they  that  "  rise  from 
the  dead  are  .  .  .  as  the  angels"  (Matt.  22  :  30).  Inquisitive- 
ness  about  the  day  and  hour  of  his  own  second  coming  is 
checked  by  the  statement  that  no  man  knows  it,  "  no,  not  the 
angels  of  heaven  "  (Matt.  24  :  36).  How  great  its  glory  shall 
be  we  learn  from  this,  that  "  all  the  holy  angels  shall  be  with 
him"  (Matt.  25  :  31).  And  how  willingly  he  gave  himself 
for  us  is  plain  when  he  says  that,  if  he  prays  now,  the  Father 
will  give  him  "  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  "  (Matt. 

26  :  53)- 

5.  Disregard  and  unbelief  as  to  these  pure  and  exalted 
beings  are  revolting  when  we  reflect  that  they  are  "  all  minis- 
tering spirits,  sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be 
heirs  of  salvation"  (Heb.  i  :  14)  How  they  exercise  their 
ministry,  whether  by  unaccountable  persuasions  to  righteous- 


ANGELS  117 

1 
ness,  or  warnings  against  what  proves  to  be  a  mortal  peril,  as 

some  think,  is  a  matter  on  which  too  little  has  been  revealed 
to  support  a  confident  assertion,  and  too  much  has  been  inti- 
mated to  justify  a  sweeping  denial. 

6.  Angels  fill  a  wide  gap  between  man  and  his  Maker  in 
the  ever-ascending  hierarchy  of  being.  Rising  from  inor- 
ganic matter  through  all  grades  of  living  things,  the  rational 
and  impressive  order  of  nature,  if  there  are  no  angels,  breaks 
off  at  man.  But  a  race  of  beings  allied  to  us  by  the  posses- 
sion of  rational  spirits,  while  above  us  in  their  independence 
of  bodies,  and  themselves,  according  to  Scripture,  holding 
various  ranks  (Col.  i  :  16;  i  Thess.  4  :  16;  Jude  9;  Rev. 
12:7),  meets  the  demand  of  analogy — an  analogy  singularly 
enough  emphasized  by  the  modern  naturalistic  account  of  the 
close  relation  of  species. 

7.  The  proneness  of  most  peoples  to  multiply  divinities,  demi- 
gods, and  lesser  superhuman  beings,  upon  the  whole  corrob- 
orates, rather  than  puts  under  suspicion,  the  doctrine  of  an- 
gels. It  is  true  that  opinions  differ  on  this  point.  As  Com- 
parative Theology  brings  into  view  correspondences  of  relig- 
ious belief  among  diverse  and  widely  separated  races,  some 
find  in  this  a  proof  of  universal  superstition ;  others  welcome 
it  as  an  evidence  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  tradition  of  a 
primitive  revelation,  or  the  sure  intuition  of  the  religious 
nature  in  man,  or  even  in  some  degree  each  of  these,  has  led 
men  in  all  lands  and  ages  into  partial  knowledge  of  the 
highest  things.  Those  who  reverence  the  Bible  should  not 
be  dismayed  to  find  that  it  embraces  every  universal,  perhaps 
every  deeply  rooted  ethnic  belief. 

But  if  the  polytheistic  tendency  is  not  regarded  as  nor- 
mal enough  to  strengthen  the  Christian  belief  in  angels,  it 
has  sometimes  proved  strong  enough  to  convert  angels  into 


Il8  ANGELS 

objects  of  unlawful  worship  (Col.  2  :  18);  and  this  result 
has  had  not  a  little  to  do  with  the  neglect  into  which  the 
doctrine  on  this  subject  has  fallen  among  strict  Protestants. 

II.    EVIL    SPIRITS,   DEVILS    OR    DEMONS. 

These  are  as  plainly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  as  widely 
testified  to  by  the  belief  of   mankind,  as   are  good  angels. 

1.  Concerning /'//T^/rc'r/^/;/ little  is  known.  It  seems  to  be 
understood  by  inspired  men  that  God  would  not  create  any 
evil  being,  and  that  therefore  the  demons,  or  devils,  are  "  the 
angels  that  sinned,"  of  whom  Peter  writes  (2  Peter  2  :  4), 
"  the  angels  who  kept  not  their  first  estate,"  according  to 
Jude  (Jude  6). 

2.  Their  chief  is  Satan.  Although  many  hold  him  to  be 
a  copy  of  the  Persian  Ahriman,  he  is  at  least  abundantly 
recognized  in  the  Bible.  Others  suppose  him  to  be  a  person- 
ification of  the  principle  of  wickedness  ;  but  this  does  violence 
to  the  uniformity  of  the  Scripture's  representation  of  him  as 
a  being  with  the  attributes  and  names  of  personality,  such 
as  "the  adversary,"  "the  tempter,"  "the  accuser"  ;  it  gives 
quite  too  little  weight  to  the  Saviour's  recognition  and  re- 
jection of  him  in  the  wilderness,  and  to  the  terrifying  desig- 
nation of  him  as  lord  over  the  region  to  which  all  the  wicked 
shall  be  consigned. 

3.  Concerning  the  activities  of  the  devil  we  know  that — 
{a)  The  most    formidable  is  his  opposition  to  the  truth 

(Matt.  13  :  19,  25,  39;  2  Cor.  4  :  4),  and  his  effort  to  entice 
men  into  sin  (Luke  22  131;  Acts  5:3;  Eph.  6:11;  i 
Peter  5  :  8) 

{B)  He  had  some  not  clearly  defined  "  power  of  death," 
now  destroyed  through  the  part  which  our  Lord  took  in  flesh 
and  blood  (Heb.  2:14). 


ANGELS  119 

(c)  Some  even  suggest  that,  as  demoniacal  possessions  were 
once  allowed  in  punishment  of  gross  sin,  suffering  of  the 
same  kind  may  not  be  unknown  to  our  times.  It  is  an  opin- 
ion equally  difficult  to  substantiate  or  disprove. 

(d)  Jesus  predicted  that  false  Christs  and  false  prophets 
would  "  show  great  signs  and  wonders  ;  insomuch  that,  if  it 
were  possible,  they  should  deceive  the  very  elect "  (Matt. 
24  :  24).  Paul,  having  apparently  the  same  events  in  mind, 
ascribes  to  the  "working  of  Satan"  the  "lying  wonders" 
which  were  to  appear  (2  Thess.  2  :  9).  Accordingly,  the 
practice  of  magic  and  witchcraft  was  formerly  attributed  to 
alliance  with  Satan,  and  not  a  few  are  satisfied  that  the  mys- 
tifying and  mischievous  performances  of  modern  "  mediums  " 
are  due  to  a  power  not  less  hostile  to  man  than  that  of  the 
"  Evil  One."  It  is  wise  to  suspend  judgment  so  long  as  the 
alternatives  of  expert  trickery,  or  of  some  obscure  but  not 
superhuman  means  of  communication  between  the  spirits  of 
living  persons,  remain  a  possible  explanation  of  these  equiv- 
ocal doings. 


PART   III 
ANTHROPOLOGY 

§  23.  The  Nature  of  Man. 

An  account  of  the  powers  which  distinguish  man  from  the 
brute  will  be  of  service  in  the  further  study  of  anthropology. 
Of  the  many  definitions  which  have  been  proposed,  perhaps 
the  best  is  that  man  is  a  rational  animal.  Reason  includes  or 
involves  all  which  sets  up  an  ineffaceable  distinction  between 
man  and  other  animals. 

[a)  Reason  is  the  faculty  of  knowing  abstract  truth.  By 
memory  and  comparison  a  brute  is  able  to  recognize  that  a 
sensible  object  is  like  other  objects  of  the  same  class,  as  a 
man,  a  dog,  a  whip  ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  a 
brute  can  carry  about  a  general  notion  of  the  class  itself,  for 
example,  man,  dog,  whip  ;  even  less  can  it  abstract  from  con- 
crete instances  the  qualities  of  which  it  has  had  experience, 
such  as  cruelty,  kindness,  courage ;  less  still  have  any  idea 
of  moral  difference ;  least  of  all,  can  it  rise  to  a  synthesis  of 
ideals  in  God. 

Man,  on  the  contrary,  can  mentally  analyze  and  synthetize  ; 
can  test  his  results  inductively  by  comparison  with  single  in- 
stances, or  deductively  by  reference  to  still  more  general 
notions  ;  among  these  he  can  intuitively  know  first  principles 
as  true  ;  among  first  principles  he  can  use  for  self-judgment 
the  idea  of  moral  distinctions ;  finally,  he  can  ascribe  all  infi- 
nite excellencies  to  a  Person  of  whose  existence  he  is  assured 
as  the  moral  complement  of  himself,  and  whom,  therefore,  he 
120 


THE  CREATION  OF   MAN  121 

feels  bound  to  worship  and  serve  as  his  own  Archetype  and 
Lord. 

{b)  The  possession  of  reason  excludes  all  limit  to  the  pos- 
sible improvement  of  the  human  mind  short  of  the  infinite; 
but,  however  surprising  the  tricks  or  the  service  which  beasts 
can  be  trained  to  perform,  their  intelligence  never  passes 
"from  reasoning  into  reason,  nor  their  susceptibility  to  fear 
and  shame  into  a  sense  of  moral  wrong. 

The  three  pre-eminent  faculties,  or  powers,  which  man  is 
seen  to  possess,  reason,  will,  and  conscience,  are  all  mutually 
inclusive.  If  asked  what  is  highest  in  man,  we  must  assign 
this  rank  to  the  capacity  of  moral  self -judgment  and  its  at- 
tendant sense  of  obligation  to  obey  an  all-holy  God ;  if  sen- 
tient creatures,  which  lack  consciousness  of  self,  are  to  be 
distinguished,  quoad  hoc,  from  man,  we  adduce  his  personal- 
ity, of  which  will,  or  the  faculty  of  conscious  self-determina- 
tion, is  the  nucleating  element ;  but  if  his  claim  to  supremacy 
over  animate  and  inanimate  nature  is  demanded,  this  preroga- 
tive can  be  found  in  the  generic  faculty  of  reason. 

The  question  of  the  elements  in  his  constitution  is  quite 
distinct  from  that  concerning  his  powers,  and  will  be  sepa- 
rately considered. 

§  24.  The  Creation  of  Man. 

I.  The  Scriptures  accord  to  man  a  different  origin  from 
that  of  the  beasts.  The  waters  and  the  earth  were  called 
upon  to  bring  forth  all  living  creatures  below  man  ;  but  man 
was  made  by  a  special  act  of  the  Creator. 

Of  the  two  passages  in  Genesis  which  give  an  account  of 
the  creation  of  man,  i  :  26,  27  states  after  what  pattern  he 
was  made,  and  gives  his  rank  among  creatures  :  he  was  made 

L 


122  THE  CREATION  OF   MAN 

in  the  image  of  God,  and  set  as  lord  over  all  earthly  beings. 
Genesis  2  :  7  intimates  in  part  the  method  of  his  creation  : 
taking  care  not  to  import  into  this  simple  story  distinctively 
modern  ideas,  we  find  in  it  the  primitive  notion  that  God 
molded  the  human  body  from  earthly  materials  and  then 
caused  it  to  live.  That  the  soul,  or  immortal  principle,  was 
thought  of  by  the  writer  (cf.  "  breath  of  life,"  in  7  :  22),  or 
that  he  regarded  it  as  an  efflux  from  the  Godhead,  are  com- 
mon but  doubtful  interpretations. 

2,  Natural  Science  has  not  only  failed  to  make  out  a  purely 
natural  origin  for  man,  but  is  really  favorable  to  his  special 
creation,  for  it  is  unable  otherwise  to  account  for  him. 

{ci)  No  trace  is  found  of  an  ancestor  for  man  among  living 
or  extinct  species  of  simians.^ 

(^)  The  differences  in  the  bony  framework  of  these  types 
are  marked.  In  man  the  posture  is  erect,  in  the  extant  apes 
it  is  prone.  The  arm  of  man  is  not  adapted  to  locomotion, 
nor  has  his  foot  a  thumb,  like  the  ape's.  Even  admitting 
that  these  and  other  differences  might  be  gradually  produced 
by  evolution,  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  this  has 
taken  place. 

{c)  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  a  human  brain  could  be 
developed  from  the  simian.  The  largest  measured  cranial 
capacity  in  the  skull  of  living  apes  is  thirty-four  cubic  inches  ; 
the  least  in  a  human  idiot  is  forty-six  inches  ;  that  of  the  low- 
est type  of  man  is  sixty-eight  inches ;  while  the  largest 
known  is  one  hundred  and  eighteen  inches.  That  is,  a  brain 
ample  enough  for  the  formidable  gorilla,  or  for  the  amiable 

*  This  may  still  be  affirmed,  notwithstanding  the  recent  discovery  in  Java  of  re- 
mains which  belonged  to  an  ape  of  erect  posture  and  somewhat  larger  brain  than 
any  heretofore  known.  This  creature  was  unmistakably  a  simian,  not  a  human, 
nor  half-himian. 


THE  CREATION  OF   MAN  123 

and  clever  chimpanzee,  is  one  quarter  too  small  for  a  human 
idiot,  and  one-half  too  small  for  the  most  degraded  savage/ 
It  is  unthinkable  that  nature  could  protect  an  imbecile  tran- 
sition-race through  ages  of  struggle  for  existence. 

(d)  The  development  of  brute  intelligence  into  reason  is 
not  alone  without  any  facts  to  support  it,  but  is  really  incon- 
ceivable. 

How  serious  this  difficulty  is  felt  to  be  finds  illustration  in 
the  plausible  but  unscientific  conjecture  that  nature  produced 
the  brain,  while  God  bestowed  the  soul  of  man.  When 
nature  furnishes  an  organ  we  must  ascribe  to  her  the  functions 
which  the  organ  is  fitted  to  perform.  Especially  ought  the 
evolutionist  to  acknowledge  the  force  of  this  objection,  since 
he  holds  that  organs  rise  to  higher  functions  by  the  exercise 
of  the  highest  they  are  capable  of.  If  then  nature  evolved 
the  human  brain,  it  evolved  the  thinking  inhabitant  of  that 
brain. 

The  considerations  which  favor  the  descent  of  species 
from  species,  with  the  exceptions  above  noted,  are  applicable 
to  man.  Especially  indicative  of  a  genetic  relation  to  some 
unknown  simian  is  the  general  correspondence  of  the  human 
body  to  that  of  apes,  and  the  presence  in  it  of  many  abortive 
organs.^     It  is  probable  that  God  specially  guided  the  rapid 

^  The  brain  of  Cuvier  weighed  65  ounces,  and  had  a  bulk  of  108  cubic  inches, 
with  cranial  capacity  of  1 1 8.  In  comparing  averages,  the  brain  of  the  gorilla 
weighs  only  one-third,  of  the  orang  and  chimpanzee  only  one-fourth,  that  of  man ; 
while  in  these  apes  the  ratio  of  brain-weight  to  body-weight  is  i  to  100,  and  in 
man  i  to  40  or  50. —  V.  art.  "Physiology,''  End.  Brit. 

^  That  the  human  race  is  subject  to  the  alleged  law  of  evolution  is  intimated  by 
the  fact  that  variation  has  already  gone  far  enough  to  approximate  specific  differ- 
ence. Thus  half-breeds  are  comparatively  sterile,  while  the  persistence  of  exist- 
ing types  is  shown  by  the  occasional  birth  of  a  very  dark  child  to  parents  nearly 
white,  or  of  a  very  white  child  to  parents  nearly  black. 


124  UNITY — CONSTITUTION 

transformation  of  some  humbler  animal's  body,  and  at  th* 
same  time  lodged  in  it  a  human  soul.  This  probable  con- 
jecture does  not  antagonize  the  biblical  account  of  our  origin, 
providing  that  we  accept  the  account  as  pictorial  and  primi- 
tive. Such  a  view  is  perhaps  generally  taken  of  the  whole 
biblical  cosmogony ;  thus,  for  instance  (Gen.  2  :  7),  God  has 
no  breath  to  impart  nor  mouth  to  breathe  from, 

§  25.  The  Unity  of  the  Human  Race. 

The  book  of  Genesis  seems  to  teach  that  the  entire  race  is 
descended  from  one  pair.  Paul  declared  to  the  race-proud 
Athenians  that  God  had  made  of  one  every  nation  (Acts  17  : 
26).  He  also  traces  sin  and  death  to  Adam  as  the  common 
father  of  all  men  (Rom.  5  :  12-19;   ^  Cor.  15  :  21,  22). 

Natural  science  has  as  yet  found  no  means  of  determining 
whether  the  race  is  of  dual  or  plural  origin  ;  yet  it  does  not 
accept  the  existence  of  varieties  in  the  human  species  as  dis- 
proof of  a  common  parentage.  On  the  other  hand,  anatomy, 
physiology,  psychology,  philology,  and  comparative  theology, 
demonstrate  that  men  are  of  one  species,  and  raise  a  strong 
presumption  in  favor  of  descent  from  one  pair. 

§  26.  Constitution  of  Man. 

The  Scriptures  ordinarily  represent  man  as  consisting  of 
soul  and  body  ;  but  Paul  and  Luke  together  with  the  Pauline 
writer  to  the  Hebrews,  distinguish  in  man  spirit,  soul,  and 
body  (nveufia,  (/fvxij,  ffw/io).  What  is  meant  by  the  threefold 
distinction  ?     And  is  man  dichotomous  or  trichotomous  ? 

I,  what  is  the  difference  between  spirit  and  soul  } 

I.  T/ie  titc/iotomous  view  is  ordma.n\y  accepted  in  our  day. 
According  to  this  view  a  human  soul  i?  the  spirit  regarded  as 
dwelling  in  a  body ;  a  human  spirit  is  the  soul  not  contem- 


CONSTITUTION   OF  MAN  125 

plated  in  its  relations  to  a  body.  Accordingly,  when  the 
words  soul  and  spirit  {^psyche  and  pneuma)  occur  together, 
either  in  the  Scriptures  or  elsewhere,  soul  is  the  immaterial 
part  of  man  engaged  in  those  offices  to  which  the  body  intro- 
duces it ;  while  spirit  is  the  same  immaterial  part  concerned 
with  realities  which  are  beyond  the  reach  of  sense ;  such  as 
God,  heaven,  and  holiness.  Thus  Luke  i  :  46,  47  ;  i  Thess. 
5  :  23  ;  Heb.  4:12,  include  both  our  lower  and  higher  powers, 
and  so  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  man. 

2.  According  to  trichotomists,  the  soul,  or  psyche,  is  the 
seat  of  animal  life,  intelligence,  and  feeling ;  while  the  spirit, 
or  pneiima,  is  a  distinct  immaterial  substance,  to  which  alone 
all  the  higher  and  Godward  functions  of  man  pertain. 

As  to  the  relations  between  the  soul  and  spirit,  trichot- 
omists  differ.  According  to  some  the  psyche  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  animal  life,  and  perishes  at  death  ;  while  the  pneuma 
is  the  rational  principle,  and  will  be  reunited  with  the  body 
at  the  resurrection.  Others  take  the  psyche  to  be  a  product 
of  the  pneuma  s  union  with  the  body  ;  and  Delitzsch  holds 
that  the  psyche  is  the  forth-breathing  of  the  pneuma,  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  breathed  forth  by  the  Father. 

II.    IS    MAN    DICHOTOMOUS    OR    TRICHOTOMOUS  } 

In  favor  of  the  dichotomic  view  we  notice : 

1.  The  few  New  Testament  writers  who  use  trichotomic 
language  do  not  necessarily  intend  to  teach  an  authoritative 
psychology  different  frtfm  that  common  to  other  writers  of 
Scripture,  and  to  the  greater  part  of  mankind. 

2.  Paul  does  not  use  soul  and  spirit,  psychical  and  pneu- 
matic, with  uniform  meanings.  In  i  Cor.  2  :  14  the  psych- 
ical is  the  unregenerate,  the  pneumatic  the  regenerate ;  but 
in  1 5  :  46  the  psychical  is  the  mortal,  the  pneumatic  the  im- 


126  CONSTITUTION  OF  MAN 

mortal.  Or  if,  in  order  to  secure  uniformity  of  meaning,  we 
identify  the  unregenerate  with  the  mortal  and  the  regener- 
ate with  the  immortal,  then — 

3.  We  must  accept  an  unscriptural  view  concerning  the 
nature  of  regeneration  ;  namely,  that  this  change  consists 
either  in  imparting  or  in  awakening  the  immortal  spirit. 
That  is,  either  man  is  not  immortal  until  after  regenera- 
tion, or  the  very  part  of  his  nature  which  deals  with  God 
needs  not  to  be  purified,  but  only  aroused — precisely  the 
reverse  of  the  scriptural  teaching  (Eph.  2:3).  A  still 
more  startling  result  should  be,  that  the  body  of  the  regener- 
ate would  at  once  become  spiritual  and  deathless. 

4.  Man's  God  ward  functions  cannot  be  ascribed  exclu- 
sively to  the  pnenvia.  Understanding  and  affection,  psych- 
ical powers  which  we  share  with  the  beasts,  are  directly  en- 
gaged in  our  relations  to  God.  The  beasts  themselves  show 
to  a  master  the  reverence  and  fidelity  which  men  owe  to  their 
Maker.  In  Luke  i  :  46,  47,  Mary's  psyche  magnifies  the 
Lord,  as  her  pneuma  rejoices  in  God  ;  and  in  2  Cor.  12:15 
Paul  declares  his  willingness  to  spend  and  be  spent  for  the 
psyches  of  the  Corinthians  (b-Kzp  xibv  4<oxu>v  viiaiv),  assuredly  not 
for  the  animal  in  them,  but  for  the  religious  part,  if  for  any 
mere  part.  That  distribution  of  offices  which  is  indispensable 
to  the  trichotomous  theory  cannot  be  made  out. 

5.  Consciousness  notifies  us  of  the  absolute  unity  and 
indivisibility  of  the  personal  self.  Psychological  analysis 
detects  no  trace  of  a  duality  in  the  immaterial  part  of  man. 

Nor  does  the  consciousness  of  the  biblical  writers  contra- 
dict ours.  If  we  are  to  take  literally  Paul's  statement  in 
Rom.  7:17  (cf.  ver,  25),  "It  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin 
that  dwelleth  in  me,"  if  we  are  to  accept  this  as  affirming  a 
partition  in  the  immaterial  part  of  Paul,  then  we  must  take 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SOULS  1 27 

literally  his  other  saying  in  Gal.  2  :  20, — "  I  have  been  cruci- 
fied with  Christ ;  and  I  no  longer  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in 
me," — and  must  hold  it  to  teach  that  the  personal  Paul 
had  been  destroyed  and  his  body  occupied  by  the  personal 
Christ.  But  this  view,  to  which  some  devout  people  make 
a  near  approach,  is  a  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  Chris- 
tian souls,  and  a  panchristic  conception  of  the  regenerate, 
which  has  all  the  faults  without  any  of  the  recommendations 
of  pantheism, 

§  27.  The  Origin  of  Souls. 

Three  views  are  held  concerning  the  origin  of  the  soul ; 
namely,  that  it  enters  the  body  from  a  pre-existent  state ; 
that  it  is  specially  created  in  the  case  of  every  person ;  that 
it  is  propagated  together  with  the  body. 

It  is  admitted  that  no  direct  scriptural  evidence  can  be 
cited  for  the  theory  of  pre-existence.  It  is  advocated  as  the 
only  solution  of  the  paradox  that  man  is  sinful  by  inheritance, 
and  yet  responsible,  and  is  further  recommended  on  the 
ground  that  it  secures  a  probation  in  time  for  spirits  that  fell 
in  a  timeless  state.  But  the  advantage  to  a  fallen  spirit  of 
subjection  to  the  temptations  of  sense  is  not  obvious. 

The  theory  of  propagation  of  souls,  or  traducianism,  is  pref- 
erable to  creationism  for  the  following  reasons  : 

I.  It  is  more  scriptural.  While  mediate  creation  through 
traduction  will  justify  the  title  "Father  of  spirits"  (Heb. 
12  19),  immediate  creation  of  individual  souls  is  excluded  by 
the  statements  that  God  finished  his  creative  work  in  six 
days  (Gen.  2:2;  Exod.  20  :  11);  that  the  unregenerate  state 
of  man  is  something  propagated  (John  3:6);  that  all  men 
actually,  not  virtually,  sinned  in  Adam  (Rom.  5  :  12);  that 


128  THE  ORIGIN  OF  SOULS 

in  Adam  all  die  (i  Cor.  15  :  22) ;  and  that  Levi,  while  in  the 
loins  of  Abraham,  paid  tithes  to  Melchisedec  (Heb.  7  :  9). 

2.  The  mental  and  moral  characteristics  of  men  as  a  race, 
as  tribes,  and  as  families,  indicate  propagation  of  souls  as  un- 
equivocally as  physical  characteristics  indicate  propagation  of 
bodies. 

3.  Psycho-physics  is  demonstrating  with  ever-increasing 
distinctness  the  close  connection  of  soul  and  body,  A 
man  is  the  synthesis  of  both.  Because  the  body  is  indispen- 
sable to  the  soul's  full  equipment,  it  will  be  restored  at  the 
resurrection  ;  and  because  the  soul  is  the  animating  principle 
of  the  body,  to  propagate  the  body  alive  is  to  propagate  the 
vitalizing  soul. 

4.  The  presumption  is  in  favor  of  traducianism.  An  event 
is  to  be  regarded  as  purely  natural  unless  there  is  irresistible 
evidence  of  divine  intervention.  The  burden  of  proof  there- 
fore rests  upon  the  theory  that  every  soul  is  specially  created. 

But  it  is  objected  to  traducianism  that  it  seems  to  imply  a 
materialistic  division  of  soul,  and  that,  according  to  this 
theory,  the  children  of  regenerate  parents  should  not  require 
a  "new  birth." 

A.  To  the  first  objection  it  may  be  replied — 

(a)  Since  the  soul  is  so  exempt  from  the  limitations  of 
matter  that  it  can  act  without  change  in  substance,  it  can 
also  be  propagated  without  partition. 

{b)  The  same  objection  would  hold  against  the  propagation 
of  animals  and  vegetables.  The  vital  principle  in  these  is  im- 
material, and  yet  it  will  scarcely  be  pretended  that  it  must 
be  specially  created  in  the  case  of  every  beast  and  plant. 

B.  To  the  second  objection  it  may  be  replied — 

{a)  If  our  first  parents  had  not  sinned,  their  children  would 


IMAGE   OF   GOD   IN    MAN  129 

have  been  innocent  by  birth  ;  and  if  the  children  of  regen- 
erate parents  need  the  new  birth,  what  follows  is  that  regen- 
eration does  not  restore  the  original  innocence  of  man. 

{b)  An  even  more  weighty  rejoinder  is  that,  according  to 
creationism,  the  souls  of  men,  being  severally  created,  had 
no  connection  with  the  primal  sin,  and  yet  they  are  natu- 
rally depraved. 

C.  To  all  objections  it  may  be  responded,  the  propagation 
of  the  species  is  so  mysterious  that  the  evident  facts  with  re- 
gard to  it  ought  not  to  be  denied  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
not  understood. 

§  28.   Image  of  God  in  Man. 
Different  theologies  find  this  in  human  personality,  in  orig- 
inal holiness,  in  dominion  over  the  beasts.     Neither  view  taken 
alone  is  satisfactory ;  for  something  of  likeness  to  God  can 
be  found  in  each  of  the  alleged  particulars, 

1.  The  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  made  was  nothing 
less  than  a  fundamental  distinction  between  the  natures  of 
men  and  beasts.  That  fundamental  distinction  is  personality. 
Accordingly,  that  the  divine  image  survived  the  fall  is  taught 
not  only  by  Gen.  5  :  1-3,  as  interpreted  by  9  :  6,  but  also  by 
I  Cor.  11:7  and  James  3  :  9.     Therefore — 

2.  The  original  moral  excellence  of  man  did  not  constitute 
the  image  of  God  in  him.  It  was,  however,  a  particular  in 
which  man  was  made  like  his  Maker.  The  likeness  was  de- 
faced though  not  effaced,  by  the  fall.  A  sinful  person  is  a 
marred  image  of  the  Creator. 

But  the  original  innocence  of  man  must  not  be  mistaken 
for  an  original  holiness.  Holiness  is  positive,  innocence  is 
negative.  And  while  we  may  ascribe  to  the  unfallen  Adam 
positive  moral  excellence,  holiness  involves  devotion  to  right- 


130  ORIGINAL   CONDITION   OF   MAN 

eousness  of  the  whole  moral  energy,  and  is  a  condition  of 
fixity  which,  even  in  the  faultless,  only  trial  can  bring  about 
(John  17  :  19;  Heb.  2  :  10;  cf.  Matt.  4  :  i). 

3.  Man's  dominion  over  the  beasts  is  a  faint  copy  of  the 
divine  lordship  (Gen.  i  :  26).  But  since  the  ascendency  of 
man  is  due  to  the  powers  which  distinguish  him  from  mere 
animals,  it  is  a  product  and  sign  of  the  divine  image,  rather 
than  itself  that  very  image. 

§  29.  Original  Condition  of  Man. 

The  elder  theologians  taught  that  man  possessed  before 
the  fall  the  highest  refinement  and  an  ideal  civilization.  Evo- 
lutionists, on  the  contrary,  generally  insist  that  our  race  has 
painfully  struggled  upward  from  a  state  of  brutal  savagery. 
Neither  view  is  supported  by  conclusive  evidence. 

1.  The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  that  Adam  was  neither  a 
savage  nor  highly  civilized.  The  practice  of  husbandry,  which 
he  followed  in  Eden,  is  neither  the  lowest  nor  the  highest  of 
occupations  (Gen.  2  :  15,  19,  20). 

2.  The  earliest  fossil  remains  indicate  a  development  of 
body  and  of  mind  decidedly  above  the  most  degraded  type  of 
savages.  These  latter  then  are  probably  degenerate  wan- 
derers, not  aborigines.  But  although  the  earliest  men,  as 
judged  by  their  known  remains,  were  above  the  lowest,  they 
were  below  the  highest  of  the  historic  races. 

3.  The  history  of  civilization  is  of  the  same  purport.  On 
the  one  hand,  civilization  is  not  indigenous,  but  is  borrowed, 
at  least  in  germ.  This  process  may  be  traced  back  with  con- 
siderable certainty  to  the  not  ignoble  arts  of  Western  Asia, 
the  earliest  known  habitat  of  man  within  historic  time. 

On  the  other  hand,  culture  is  a  product   of  cultivation. 


the:  law  of  god  131 

The  beginnings  of  a  civilization  may  be  traceable  to  an  earlier 
people  until  the  earliest  traditional  peoples  are  reached ;  but  ^ 
high  state  of  civilization  is  the  elaborated  product  of  the 
society  in  which  it  is  found.  It  is  not  then  conceivable  that 
modern  knowledge  and  modern  arts  belonged  to  our  first 
parents  ;  while  it  is  equally  improbable  that  God  created  the 
primal  pair  but  little  above  the  brutes. 

§  30.  The  Law  of  God. 
i.  the  idea  of  law. 

1.  Definition.  Law  was  originally  a  political  term,  and 
meant  a  rule  of  conduct  prescribed  by  authority.  To  modern 
science,  law  is  an  order  of  facts  determined  by  their  nature. 

2.  Distinctions.  A  true  idea  and  correct  use  of  the  term 
are  secured  only  by  careful  discrimination  in  several  particu- 
lars. 

{a)  Law  is  an  order  of  facts,  not  efficient  force,  nor  a  force 
regulative  of  efficient  forces. 

{b)  Law  is  an  existing,  not  merely  an  observed  order,  for 
order  or  law  existed  before  it  was  observed.  Nor  is  law, 
strictly  speaking,  the  statement  of  an  order  which  has  be- 
come known ;  the  statement  is  one  thing,  the  fact  stated  is 
another. 

{c)  Law  belongs  to  the  nature  of  facts,  and  is  not  imposed 
on  them  by  a  restraining  will.     Hence — 

id)  Law  is  fixed,  for  to  change  the  nature  of  a  thing  is  to 
make  it  something  else.  The  observed  order  may  change ; 
but  this  only  reveals  more  fully  the  nature  of  the  thing  ob- 
served. It  is  a  further  discovery,  not  a  repeal  of  its  law. 
For  instance,  the  successive  modes  of  existence  in  a  but- 
terfly. 

{e)  Sentient  beings  normally  exhibit  a  varying  order ;  be- 


132  THE   LAW  OF  GOD 

cause  their  bodily,  mental,  and  volitional  powers  contain  a 
structural  provision  for  more  or  less  choice  of  action. 

(J')  Sentient  beings  may  violate  law,  for  their  organs  are 
not  perfectly  co-ordinated  ;  and  each,  while  acting  according 
to  its  own  form,  may  either  repress  or  strain  other  organs, 
or  disturb  their  normal  relations,  and  thus  impair  the  or- 
ganism. 

This  solves  the  problem  how  physical  law  can  be  inviolable 
and  moral  law  violable,  although  law  in  both  cases  is  a  con- 
stituent principle.  Physical  law  cannot  be  broken,  because 
to  break  a  physical  law  would  be  to  change  the  nature  of  a 
physical  object,  that  is,  to  put  it  out  of  existence;  while 
organic  law,  of  which  moral  law  is  a  variety,  can  be  broken, 
because  organisms  as  such  are  destructible. 

[g)  It  is  the  office  of  reason  to  recognize  the  proper  rela- 
tion of  organic  functions,  and  to  preside  over  their  exercise. 
The  lack  of  structural  exclusion  of  disorder  is  met  in  rational 
beings  by  a  provision  for  its  voluntary  exclusion  ;  so  that  for 
reason  to  rule  is  still  to  secure  an  order  of  facts  prescribed 
by  the  nature  of  the  facts. 

3.  hiferences.  The  conception  of  law  as  determined  by  the 
natures  of  things  involves  momentous  results. 

{a)  To  know  the  laws  of  things  is  to  know  the  innermost 
and  the  utmost  that  can  be  known. 

(b)  The  scientific  conception  of  law  is  applicable  to  all 
spheres,  for  all  things  possess  some  definite  nature,  some 
essential  constitution.  In  geometry  the  facts  are  continuous, 
and  their  law  is  the  constant  ratio  between  them  ;  for  exam- 
ple, between  the  angles  and  sides  of  a  triangle.  In  mechanics 
and  chemistry  the  facts  may  be  successive,  and  their  law  is 
the  method  of  the  force  which  produces  the  changes  observed. 


THE   LAW  OF  GOD  1 33 

In  organisms,  or  living  things,  a  law  is  that  order  of  pro- 
cesses, whether  vital  or  voluntary,  which  the  structure  of 
the  organism  prescribes.  Social  laws  are  the  constitutive 
methods  of  the  social  faculties.  Statutes  or  positive  laws, 
whether  of  divine  or  human  government,  are,  if  just,  merely 
a  publication  of  laws  grounded  in  the  nature  of  man  at  a  given 
stage  of  development.  Ceremonial  requirements  in  religion 
represent  either  a  transient  state  of  pupilage  which  looks 
toward  its  own  termination,  as  in  the  case  of  Levitical  rites, 
or  a  permanent  dependence  of  mind  upon  the  suggestions  of 
sense,  as  in  case  of  the  Christian  institutions  and  ordinances. 
Even  God  is  under  the  law  of  his  own  nature,  so  that  what- 
ever he  does  for  us  must  be  done  in  harmony  with  law,  or  it 
is  a  violation  both  of  our  nature  and  his  own.  Even  to  for- 
give infractions  of  law  is  according  to  law,  because  grace  is  a 
normal  divine  function,  and  repentance  a  normal  human  con- 
dition of  forgiveness.  How  atonement  is  according  to  law 
will  be  hereafter  considered.  If  any  theological  theory  fails 
to  illustrate  law  in  the  simple  but  searching  idea  of  it  com- 
mon to  all  sciences,  then  the  theory  is  inadequate  or  even 
false,  and  the  nature  of  the  case  but  meagerly  understood. 

II.    THE    SOURCE    OF    LAW. 

1.  Since  law  is  a  constituent  of  forces  and  things,  its  origin 
is  in  their  Creator.  In  appointing  their  natures  he  fixed  their 
laws. 

2.  But  in  what  sense  is  God  the  source  of  law  ?  May  it  be 
traced  to  his  will,  to  his  benevolence,  or  to  his  nature .''  Un- 
doubtedly to  his  nature.  His  will  is  the  immediate  source 
of  law,  and  benevolence  certainly  guided  his  will  ;  but  both 
will  and  benevolence  belong  to  his  nature,  must  be  exer- 
cised in  harmony  with  his  entire  nature,  and  therefore  the 

M 


134  THE   LAW  OF  GOD 

primary  and  determinative  source  of  law  is  the  perfect  nature 
of  God. 

All  laws  then  which  God  has  instituted  are  "  transcripts 
of  the  divine  nature " — moral  laws,  of  its  moral  aspects  ; 
mental  laws,  of  its  intellectual  aspect ;  physical  laws,  of  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  creating  physical  objects  fitted  to  his  designs. 

III.    THE    OBLIGATION    OF    LAW.  { 

e 

1.  T/ie  moral  obligation.  This  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
laws  are  the  normal  mode  of  action.  For  a  rational  being  to 
use  his  powers  in  harmony  with  their  norm  is  to  attain  the 
true  end  of  his  existence.  This  is  the  ultimate  obligation  in 
ethics,  an  obligation  due  even  from  the  divine  Being  to  him- 
self. Conversely,  for  a  rational  being  to  violate  his  norm  is  a 
crime  against  nature,  an  ultimate  evil,  requiring  no  analysis, 
and  admitting  of  none. 

2.  The  religions  obligation.  Since  the  all-perfect  Being 
is  per  se  the  ultimate  standard  of  right,  the  ethical  obligation 
to  normality,  which  our  own  nature  prescribes,  rises  into  the 
religious  obligation  to  normality,  in  order  that  we  may  con- 
form to  the  divine  nature. 

In  accepting  the  holy  nature  of  God  as  the  supreme  stand- 
ard of  right  we  have  not  rendered  the  antithesis  between 
right  and  wrong  more  complete  ;  right  is  not  more  certainly 
that  which  ought  to  be  done,  nor  wrong  more  essentially  that 
which  ought  not  to  be  done.  No  right  deed  can  be  cited  on 
the  part  of  man  or  of  God  which  is  not  a  normal  deed,  or 
which  is  right  for  any  other  reason  than  that  it  is  normal  ;  no 
wrong  can  be  found  which  is  not  abnormal,  or  which  is  wrong 
for  any  other  reason  than  that  it  is  abnormal.  To  question 
the  intrinsic  Tightness  of  the  normal  in  man  would  be  to 


SIN  135 

raise  the  same  question  against  the  intrinsic  moral  excellence 
of  God,  whose  changeless  normality  is  his  holy  perfection. 

What  we  have  gained  in  accepting  the  divine  as  the  cri- 
terion of  human  goodness  is  the  impressiveness  of  the  obli- 
gation to  be  good.  The  high  worth  of  moral  excellence  is 
felt  when  it  is  witnessed  in  a  good  man ;  its  boundless  im- 
portance is  felt  when  it  is  witnessed  in  an  infinitely  holy  God. 
It  is  the  function  of  reason  to  know  the  truth  of  the  abstract 
idea  of  right ;  but  it  is  the  function  of  moral  sensibility  to 
be  stirred  by  the  concrete  exhibition  of  righteousness  in  a 
person. 

§  31-  Sin. 
i.  definition. 

We  have  seen  that  any  violation  of  the  constitutive  laws 
of  a  rational  being  in  the  view  of  ethics  is  wrong,  and  in  the 
view  of  religion  is  wicked.  The  word  sin  belongs  to  the  ter- 
minology of  religion,  and  the  usual  definition  of  it  may  be 
accepted  :  Sin  is  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God. 

If  this  definition,  as  interpreted  by  the  idea  of  law,  seems 
inapplicable  to  violations  of  ceremonial  or  merely  positive 
requirements,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  normal  to 
obey  God,  and  that  these  requirements  are  fitly  ordained  by 
God  because  they  are  suitable  to  man  as  they  find  him,  and 
therefore  to  break  them  \%per  se  sinful. 

Since  the  law  of  God  corresponds  to  the  constitution  of 
the  ideal  man,  sin  takes  as  many  phases  as  there  are  forms  of 
departure  from  that  ideal.  Consequently,  to  begin  with  the 
concrete,  sin  is — 

I.  An  act  of  disobedience  to  the  law  (i  John  3:4;  d.vo[i(a, 
lawlessness,  iniquity,  either  of  disposition  or  acts).  But  an 
act  of  transgression  is  the  fruit  of  a  bad  ruling  principle ; 
hence  sin  is — 


136  SIN 

2.  A  principle  of  self-willed  opposition  to  God  (John  8  ; 
34;  Rom.  6  :  12-14;  7  passim  ;  Eph.  2  :  3).  But  a  control- 
ling principle  of  conduct  reveals  a  corresponding  moral  state  ; 
hence  sin  is — 

3.  A  state  of  moral  unlikeness  to  God  (Matt.  15  :  18; 
Luke  6  :  44,  45  ;  Rom.  7  :  14;  Eph.  2  :  3).' 

II.    THE    ESSENCE    OF    SIN. 

Various  theories  have  been  proposed  and  are  still  current 
upon  this  subject.     The  more  important  are — 

1.  The  essence  of  sin  is  sensuality.     But — 

[a)  The  normal  indulgence  of  appetites  is  not  sinful ;  while 
the  abnormal,  ascetic  restraint  of  them  is  certainly  a  blunder 
and  of  doubtful  morality. 

(b)  Sensuality  does  not  account  for  vices  of  the  mind 
either  in  men  or  demons. 

{c)  Paul  cannot  be  quoted  in  support  of  this  theory ;  for, 
although  he  uses  the  word  "  flesh  "  as  a  bold  symbol  for  sin, 
he  includes  among  its  works  witchcraft,  hatred,  etc.,  offenses 
not  distinctly  sensual  (Gal.  5  :  20  ;  cf.  "  desires  of  the  flesh 
and  of  the  mind,"  Eph.  2  :  3). 

2.  The  evolutionist  view  is  that  we  inherit  from  brute 
progenitors  not  only  vices  of  sense,  but  those  of  the  mind, 
such  as  vanity,  deceitfulness,  malice,  revenge.  These  pro- 
pensities are  regarded  as  immoral  in  man,  because  experience 
shows  him  that  they  are  injurious  alike  to  himself  and  to 
others.  Evolutionism  thus  declares  the  essence  by  account- 
ing for  the  origin  of  sin.  Both  phases  of  the  theory  must 
be  considered,  if  either. 

A.  As  an  account  of  the  origin  of  sin  we  note  that — 

>  This  distinction  is  accepted  from  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson,  and  will  be  found  a  key 
to  many  difficult  problems. 


SIN  137 

(a)  The  evolution  of  man  from  the  beasts  is  an  unproved 
speculation  ;  but  a  divinely  guided  evolution  is  a  probable 
speculation. 

(d)  The  theory  can  relieve  the  problem  of  the  fall  only  by 
modifying  the  current  doctrine  of  original  innocence.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  if  the  Scriptures  teach  that  man  was 
originally  good,  they  teach  that  the  beasts  also,  with  their 
rudimentary  vices,  were  "good."  And  since  the  beasts  could 
become  human  only  as  changed  by  the  Creator,  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  the  first  men  would  inherit  any  further  proclivity  to 
sin  than  they  unquestionably  possessed  in  desires  which  could 
be  solicited  to  evil. 

B.  As  a  theory  of  the  essence  of  sin  evolutionism  is  open 
to  the  more  serious  objection  that  misconduct  is  not  wrong  be- 
cause it  is  injurious,  but  is  both  injurious  and  wrong  because 
it  is  abnormal.  What  is  normal  in  a  brute  may  be  abnormal 
in  a  rational  being. 

3.  Finiteiiess  or  limitation  is  said  to  be  the  essence  of  sin, 
because  the  Infinite  alone  is  perfect. 

(a)  But  it  is  not  the  privilege  of  the  Infinite  alone  to  be 
good,  A  finite  being  that  spontaneously  fulfills  the  ends  for 
which  he  was  created  is  without  fault. 

{B)  Sins  are  not  mere  limitations,  but  the  active  expres- 
sions of  a  perverse  nature. 

ic)  This  is  essentially  the  pantheistic  doctrine  that  "  evil 
is  good  in  the  making,"  that  the  distinction  between  good 
and  bad  is  one  of  quantity  rather  than  quality,  and  hence,  as 
pantheists  show  a  marked  disposition  to  hold,  that  might 
makes  right. 

4.  Selfishness  is  the  essence  of  sin.  This  is  probably  the 
most  widely  accepted  theory.  It  is,  however,  open  to  the 
objections ; 


138  THE  FALL  OF  MAN 

(a)  It  is  maintained  on  the  ground  that  love  is  the  essence 
of  obedience,  as  well  as  a  motive  to  it,  and  is  subject  to  the 
criticisms  which  hold  against  resolving  holiness  into  benevo- 
lence. 

(p)  Selfishness  is  a  principle  of  conduct,  and  cannot  be  the 
essence  of  sin  as  a  state. 

(c)  Even  as  a  principle  of  conduct  selfishness  is  not  an  un- 
resolvable  essence,  but  may  be  further  analyzed.  Selfishness ' 
is  excessive  self-love.  The  wrong  element  in  it  is  its  excess. 
But  self-love  is  excessive  only  when  it  goes  beyond  the 
bounds  set  for  it  in  the  constitution  of  man  as  a  being  fitted 
for  social  relations. 

Or,  since  enlightened  self-love  would  lead  one  to  exercise 
his  high  social  faculties,  selfishness  might  be  defined  as  a 
misdirected  self-love,  and  the  evil  element  in  it  would  be  its 
irrationality.     Self-interest  is  in  being  unselfish. 

From  either  point  of  view  the  evil  in  selfishness  is  seen  to 
be  its  want  of  conformity  to  the  law,  or  method  of  conduct, 
prescribed  by  the  constitution  of  the  ideal  or  typical  man. 
Hence  we  conclude  that — 

5.  The  essence  of  sin  is  its  abnor>nality .  It  is  essentially 
a  violation  of  the  nature  which  God  gave  to  man  and  of  the 
divine  nature  after  which  man  was  patterned.  In  the  case  of 
rational  beings,  capable  of  recognizing  the  relations  of  con- 
duct to  constitutive  law,  moral  quality,  good  or  bad,  inheres 
in  such  relations.  This  we  know  by  intuition,  and  there- 
fore cannot,  and  need  not,  prove.     The  enormity  of  sin  is  its 

abnormity. 

§  32.  The  Fall  of  Man. 

God  made  man  faultless  (Gen.  1:31;  Eccl.  7  :  29 ;  Rom. 
5  :  12).  He  was  spontaneously  correct  in  all  relations. 
Toward  God  his  natural  relation  was  one  of  reverence,  sub- 


THE   FALL  OF  MAN 


139 


mission,  trust,  and  love ;  toward  human  beings  it  was  one  of 
love,  respect,  and  helpfulness ;  toward  inferior  creatures  one 
of  kindness  and  authority ;  for  himself  it  was  the  propor- 
tionate  exercise  of  all  his  powers,  and  distaste  for  excess  in 
the  use  of  any. 

Deliberate  and  repeated  choice  of  right  would  have  tended 
to  fixity  in  righteousness ;  but,  when  subjected  to  the  inevi- 
table test,  he  fell. 

I.    THE  SCRIPTURAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  FALL. 

The  account  given  in  Gen.  3  :  1-6,  whether  taken  literally 
or  symbolically,  is  luminous  and  intrinsically  probable.  The 
tempter  suggested  that  there  was  a  conflict  between  the 
natural  demands  of  human  nature  and  the  known  inhibition 
of  God.  The  lower  appetites  of  the  palate  and  the  eye,  with 
the  higher  longings  of  the  mind  (3  :  6),  were  incited  against 
fidelity  to  the  highest  function  of  man,  confiding  submission 
to  God ;  self-will  was  provoked ;  distrust  of  God  followed ; 
and  sin  was  outwardly  consummated  in  an  act  of  disobedience. 

n.    THE    PROBLEM    OF    THE    FALL. 

The  scriptural  account  of  the  process  through  which  man 
was  led  into  sin  does  not  make  it  possible  to  understand  how 
a  rational  and  upright  being  could  do  himself  the  extreme 
violence  of  setting  his  will  against  the  will  of  God.  Nor  does 
it  make  it  plain  how  God  could  permit  the  fall. 

(a)  The  ethical  difficulty  is  that  every  determination  of  the 
will  actually  and,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  necessarily  corresponds 
to  character.  The  dilemma  is  obvious  :  either  the  primal  sin 
shows  that  Adam  was  sinful  before  the  fall ;  or  his  previous 
innocence  shows  that  the  fall  was  innocent. 

(d)  The  theological  difficulty  is  that  God  foreknew  what 


140  THE   FALL  OF   MAN 

man  would  do.  He  knew  that  the  entire  human  race  would 
fall  victim  to  the  evil  which  he  most  compassionates  and  most 
abhors.     The  problem  of  the  fall  is  insoluble. 

III.    THEORIES    OF    THE    FALL. 

But  the  insolubility  of  the  problem  has  not  deterred  either 
philosophers  or  theologians  from  renewed  attempts  upon  it. 
The  objections  to  ascribing  the  fall  to  carnal  appetites,  to 
bestial  inheritance,  or  to  finiteness,  were  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  corresponding  theories  as  to  the  essence  of  sin.  It 
remains  to  notice  the  following  proposed  solutions  : 

I.  In  morals  as  in  physics  nothing  is  achieved  except  by 
overcoming  resistance.  Sin  is  thus  contemplated  as  a  kind 
of  moral  inertia.  Without  actual  sin,  therefore,  there  could 
be  no  positive  righteousness. 

{a)  But  moral  acts  would  necessarily  meet  with  moral  re- 
sistance only  in  case  they  constituted  a  class  distinct  and 
apart  from  acts  of  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will ;  whereas 
moral  excellence  is  but  a  quality  inherent  in  all  normal  con- 
duct of  a  rational  being.  Whatever,  therefore,  the  resistance 
to  any  normal  function,  the  moral  excellence  of  the  function 
could  not  increase  the  resistance,  but  would  be  supremely  at- 
tractive to  an  unfallen  being. 

(p)  The  only  condition  precedent  of  moral  choice  before 
the  fall  was  an  idea  of  something  that  ought  to  be  avoided  ; 
and  this  idea  was  provided  by  the  law  of  the  forbidden  fruit. 
It  is  true  that  full  knowledge  of  either  good  or  evil  can  be 
obtained  only  by  experience  of  its  opposite,  so  that  the  "  tree 
of  knowledge  "  stands  for  something  ethically  real.  But,  what- 
ever it  stands  for,  it  cannot  mean  that  our  first  parents  had 
no  knowledge  at  all  of  good  or  evil  until  they  fell ;  for  they 
knew  that  divine  commands  ought  to  be  obeyed,  and  to  have 


PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL  I4I 

an  idea  of  duty  is  to  have  an  idea  of  the  right  and  of  its  op- 
posite. 

2.  The  Calvinistic  theory  that  God  decreed  sin  either  effi- 
ciently or  permissively. 

But  the  moral  perfections  of  God  forbid  us  to  believe  that 
he  actively  caused  sin  (James  i  :  13);  while  to  say  that  he 
permitted  it,  is  still  to  leave  open  the  question  how  it  was 
efficiently  caused. 

§  33.  Penal  Consequences  of  the  Fall. 

Some  theologians  distinguish  between  the  natural  conse- 
quences and  the  penalties  of  the  fall.  They  may  be  distin- 
guished in  idea,  but  are  not  distinct  in  fact. 

{a)  All  penalties  are  natural  consequences.  The  wrath  of 
God  is  as  natural  as  the  reproaches  of  conscience ;  and  the 
suffering  which  he  inflicts  is  as  natural  a  result  of  his  wrath 
as  any  harm  which  the  sinner  does  to  himself. 

{V)  All  the  natural  consequences  of  the  fall  are  penalties. 
They  are  the  sanctions  which  belong  to  law  as  an  element  in 
the  constitution  of  moral  beings  ;  so  that  inwrought  evils  are 
as  manifest  agencies  of  the  divine  government  as  are  statutory 
punishments. 

Indeed,  law  appears  all  the  more  sacred,  and  penalty  the 
more  solemn,  when  we  consider  that  sin  inevitably  draws  a 
penalty  upon  itself  from  every  source,  and  that  such  penalties 
are  in  no  case  arbitrarily  imposed. 

Of  the  penal  consequences  of  the  primal  sin  the  following 
are  the  more  important : 

I.  death. 

This  was  the  penalty  expressly  threatened  for  disobedience 


142  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL 

of  the  sole  restraint  imposed  in  Eden  (Gen.  2  :  17).  Death 
as  a  consequence  of  the  fall  is  both  physical  and  spiritual,  but 
pre-eminently  spiritual. 

1.  Spiritual  death  is  loss  of  harmony  with  God.  That 
man  was  naturally  mortal  and  death  chiefly  spiritual  is  assured 
by  the  facts  : 

{a)  The  tree  of  life  was  provided  in  order  to  secure  the 
unfallen  Adam  from  physical  death. 

(b)  Christ  removes  the  penalty  of  sin.  In  so  doing  he  re- 
stores the  soul  to  union  with  God  (Eph,  2  :  4-6),  but  does  not 
prevent  its  severance  from  the  body. 

{c)  The  New  Testament  characteristically  represents  life 
and  death  as  spiritual. 

{d)  Geology  teaches  that  physical  death  long  preceded  the 
creation  of  man,  and  physiology  affords  no  reason  for  suppos- 
ing that  the  body  of  man  was  ever  deathless. 

2.  Physical  death,  or  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body, 
is  also  a  penalty  of  the  fall. 

{a)  Access  to  the  tree  of  life  was  cut  off  in  consequence  of 
the  fall.       . 

(b)  The  sting  of  physical  death  is  sin ;  and  so  far  as  this  is 
removed,  the  penalty  of  physical  death  is  removed  (i    Cor. 

15  :  55-57)- 

{c)  In  the  end,  Christ  will  deliver  his  people  from  physical 

'death  (i   Cor.  15  :  22).     As  man  is  dual,  so  life  in  Christ  is 

dual.     The  resurrection  of  the  body  is  peculiarly  associated 

with  a  vital  relation  to  Christ  (Rom.  8:11;  Phil.  3:11,  12). 

If  it  be  objected  that  physical  death  cannot  be  a  penalty 
of  sin,  for  the  reason  that  the  threatened  penalty  was  to 
be  suffered  on  the  day  when  the  forbidden  fruit  was  eaten ; 
we  reply — 

Death  is  twofold.     Spiritual  death  was  suffered  at  once^ 


PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL  14^ 

physical  death  was  at  once  made  certain  ;  precisely  as  life  is 
twofold,  and  the  promise  of  Christ,  '•  Whosoever  liveth  and 
believeth  in  me  shall  never  die  "  (John  1 1  :  26),  is  fulfilled  at 
once  for  the  spirit,  but  is  not  yet  applicable  to  the  body  (i 
Cor.  1 5  :  54). 

II.    NATIVE  DEPRAVITY,  OR  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

Recalling  the  distinction  between  sin  as  a  state,  principle, 
and  act,  we  may  define  Native  Depravity  as  (a)  an  inborn 
state  of  moral  debasement,  marked  by  (d)  an  irresistible 
proneness  to  (^)  acts  of  sin.  Because  this  debasement  be- 
longs to  every  man  from  the  beginning  of  his  individual  ex- 
istence, it  is  not  improperly  called  Original  Sin.  It  is  an 
inherited  penalty  of  the  fall. 

I.  Extent  of  Depravity. 

Is  native  depravity  partial  or  is  it  total  ?  The  doctrine  of 
Total  Depravity  is  often  understood  to  be  that  there  is  only 
wickedness  in  man.  It  has  even  been  argued  that  he  is  con- 
tinually as  wicked  as  possible.  But  such  opinions  defy  the 
common  conscience,  and  the  doctrine  which  they  misrepre- 
sent shares  their  disrepute.  It  is  not  true  that  all  the  mo- 
tives and  acts  of  the  unregenerate  are  entirely  wrong.  Pos- 
sibly no  act  or  motive  is  utterly  wrong.  Conscience  approves 
in  one's  self,  and  the  noblest  sentiment  of  mankind  un- 
stintedly lauds  many  of  the  acts  and,  so  far  as  they  appear, 
the  motives  of  men  whom  no  one  regards  as  regenerate. 
We  must  not  conclude  that  the  common  conscience  is  in 
error,  or  that  God  entirely  condemns  what  men  thus  unite  to 
honor  and  love. 

At  the  same  time  a  defensible  meaning  can  be  found  for 
the  conventional  title,  Total  Depravity  to  wit — 


144  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL 

(a)  No  unconverted  man  loves  God  supremely,  and  his 
motives  are  always  wrong  by  defect.  But  he  loves  his  own 
way  supremely,  and  when  the  law  of  God  demands  the  sur- 
render of  his  will  he  finds  his  will  perverse  (Rom.  7  :  7-24). 

(d)  All  his  powers  are  disordered  by  sin.  This  is  so 
familiarly  true  of  the  appetites  that  "  tJie  flesW  in  scriptural 
and  in  popular  language  is  used  concretely  for  sin.  The 
"  understanding  also  is  darkened,"  men  are  •'  alienated  from 
the  life  of  God  because  of  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them  " 
(Eph.  4  :  18),  "the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  .  .  .  are 
foolishness  unto  them"  (i  Cor.  2  :  14);  and  the  judgment 
against  them  is  that  they  even  "  loved  the  darkness  rather 
than  the  light  "  (John  3  :  19). 

2.    Theories  of  Native  Depravity. 

Sharp  conflict  of  opinion  has  long  prevailed  over  this 
theme.     The  following  views  require  notice  : 

A.  The  Pelagian,  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  born  as 
he  was  created,  neither  good  nor  bad,  that  they  severally  de- 
termine their  own  moral  state  and  receive  from  the  fall  of 
Adam  no  other  injury  than  the  influence  of  an  evil  example. 

But  this  theory  is  openly  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Script- 
ure that  we  are  "  by  nature,"  that  is  by  birth,  "  the  children 
of  wrath"  (Eph.  2  :  3  ;  cf.  Rom.  5  :  12,  19). 

B.  Semi-pelagian,  Arminian  and  New  School  theologians 
agree  that  men  inherit  a  bias  toward  sin,  but  deny  that 
Adam's  sin  is  imputed,  that  depravity  is  a  penalty  of  the 
fall,  or  that  it  is  reckoned  as  sin  until  the  will  yields  to  the 
propensity  sinward. 

To  the  Semi-pelagian,  depravity  is  a  sickness,  not  a  sinful- 
ness. To  the  evangelical  Arminian  or  Wesleyan,  it  is  a  cor 
ruption  or  vitiosity,  and  disables  man  from  turning  to  right- 


PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL  I45 

eousness  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  punishable,  and  the 
disability  it  causes  is  corrected  through  the  atonement  by  the 
restoration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  men.  To  the  New 
School  theologian,  the  vitiosity  is  sinful  because  it  leads  to 
sin,  but  is  not  itself  sin,  for  sin  is  a  voluntary  violation  of  a 
known  law ;  sin  consists  in  sinning. 

Against  these  kindred  views  it  must  be  urged  that — 

(a)  An  inborn  state  which  turns  our  wills  against  God  is 
itself  a  state  of  sin. 

(d)  Our  consciences  condemn  what  we  are  as  well  as  what 
we  do.  We  repent,  not  indeed  of  Adam's  sin,  but  of  the 
moral  condition  into  which  it  brought  us. 

(c)  That  condition  is  not  only  a  penal  consequence  of  the 
fall,  but  itself  offensive  to  God — a  penalty  all  the  more  gre\ 
ous  because  itself  punishable.    The  mischiefs  wrought  by  sin 
increase  by  multiplication  into  themselves. 

C.  T/ie  Federalist  theory  that  a  covenant  of  works  was 
formed  with  Adam,  according  to  which  he  was  appointed  fed- 
eral head  of  the  race,  and  the  race  was  granted  a  probation 
in  him.  The  covenant  stipulated  that,  if  Adam  continued  in 
obedience,  the  race  should  be  maintained  in  righteousness  ; 
whereas  if  he  fell,  his  sin  should  be  imputed  immediately  to 
his  posterity,  and  as  a  consequence  they  should  be  born  de- 
praved.    Sufficient  objections  to  this  view  are  : 

{a)  It  necessitates  the  creationist  theory  concerning  the 
origin  of  souls. 

(^)  The  Scriptures  say  nothing  of  such  a  covenant. 

{c)  They  do  not  reveal  so  violent  and  entirely  arbitrary  an 
arrangement  as  that  God  by  sheer  exercise  of  sovereignty  im- 
putes to  Adam's  posterity  an  act  in  which,  as  the  theory  in- 
sists, they  had  no  share. 

{d)  Nor  do  the  Scriptures  warrant  the  harsh  idea  that  wc 


146  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALI, 

are  punished  with  depravity  in  consequence  of  the  imputation 
by  legal  fiction  of  another's  sin.  The  texts  quoted  for  the 
federalist  view  more  readily  suggest  another  : 

D.  The  theory  of  Natural  Headship  in  Adam.  All  hu- 
man nature  was  in  our  first  parents  when  they  fell,  and  was 
subsequently  propagated  in  the  state  to  which  they  had 
brought  it.  This  view  involves  the  traducianist  theory  as  to 
the  origin  of  souls.  That  native  depravity  is  a  consequence 
of  the  natural  headship  of  Adam  is  supported  by — 

{a)  The  Scriptures.  It  was  in  consequence  of  the  ger- 
minal inclusion  of  the  race  in  its  natural  head  that  Paul  could 
say,  in  Rom.  5  :  1 2,  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin,"  adding  at  once  the  explanatory  statement, 
"And  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  because  (^0'  '<D)  all  sinned," 
(aorist,  ilfiaprov) ;  could  in  verse  19  repeat  the  explanation,  "By 
one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made  (xaT£ffTd&7j<Tav= 
constituted  not  reckoned ;  cf.  Greek  text  of  James.  3:6; 
4  :  4;  2  Peter  i  :  8)  sinners"  ;  and  in  i  Cor.  15  :  22  could 
curtly  trace  the  all-inclusive  penalty  of  sin  to  the  first  man, 
"  In  Adam  all  die  "  (cf.  Ps.  5 1  :  5). 

(d)  Historical  evidence.  The  universality  of  sin  testifies 
that  depravity  is  inborn,  and,  if  inborn,  inherited,  as  dis- 
tinctly as  it  is  possible  for  experience  to  testify  to  any  native 
and  hereditary  peculiarities  of  mankind. 

III.    LOSS    OF    MORAL    FREEDOM. 

Man  possesses  formal  freedom,  because  he  prefers  the 
course  which  he  follows ;  but  he  has  lost  real  freedom,  be- 
cause the  preference  for  sin  is  a  bondage  which  he  cannot 
break.  Some  inquiry  as  to  the  nature  of  the  will  and  of  its 
freedom  is  necessary  in  order  to  show  the  correctness  and 
the  importance  of  this  distinction. 


PENAI.   CONSEQUENCES   OF  THE   FALt  14^ 

I.    Theories  of  Will  and  Freedom. 

1.  The  Will  is  that  faculty  of  conscious  self-determination 
which  belongs  to  every  rational  being. 

2.  As  to  Freedom  of  the  Will  two  views  only  need  attention. 

A.  Self-determination  is  a  function  of  the  will  itself ;  that 
is,  the  will  is  able  to  decide  between  rival  motives,  uncon- 
trolled either  by  external  restraints  or  by  personal  prefer- 
ences.    This  is  the  so-called  "power  of  contrary  choice." 

Sufficient  objections  to  this  view  are  : 

(a)  Since  the  will  is  the  egos  power  of  self-determination, 
self-determination  belongs  to  the  ego,  not  to  the  will.  In 
other  words,  volitions  are  not  self-determined,  but  are  self- 
determinations. 

{b)  Volition  executes  choice ;  choice  is  net  preference ; 
preference  invariably  conforms  to  character.  A  volition  not 
determined  by  character  is  without  example,  is  inconceivable, 
and  would  be  irresponsible. 

These  objections  suggest  the  alternative  view  : 

B.  Freedom  of  the  will  is  self-direction,  or  freedom  of  the 
mind  in  willing,  and  consists  in  the  very  fact  that  a  being 
can  will.     To  will  unfreely  would  be  not  to  will  at  all. 

That  freedom  inheres  in  the  capacity  of  conscious  self- 
determination  is  apparent  from  the  process  of  forming  voli- 
tions. The  idea  of  ends  may  be  forced  upon  the  mind 
through  the  senses ;  but  it  furnishes  only  the  occasion,  not 
the  cause  of  motives.  Motives  are  the  conflicting  desires 
or  repulsions  of  any  kind  which  arise  within  the  mind  upon 
the  contemplation  of  ends  among  which  to  choose.  Choice 
is  the  final  predominance  of  a  single  or  a  complex  motive ; 
that  is,  choice  is  net  preference.  Volition  is  decision  to  act 
for  the  chosen  end. 


148  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE   FALL 

Now  in  every  step  of  this  process  after  the  first — the  rise 
of  the  idea  of  ends — the  mind  is  self-moved.'  To  have  mo- 
tives is  for  the  mind  itself  to  desire  or  dislike  various  ends. 
To  make  choice  is  for  the  mind  itself  to  prefer,  on  whatever 
account,  one  end  rather  than  any  alternative  end.  To  form 
a  volition  is  for  the  mind  to  purpose  the  attainment  of  what 
it  chooses.  At  each  step  of  the  process  it  is  the  mind  itself 
that  acts,  and  it  acts  from  itself.  Man  is  a  first  cause  in 
willing. 

2.   Objections. 

A.   Oti  the  Part  of  Necessitarianism. 

It  is  urged  that  to  ascribe  to  man  self-determination,  or 
primary  causation,  is  to  violate  both  the  necessary  conviction 
that  every  event  must  have  a  cause,  and  the  induction  of 
physics  that  energy  is  never  created,  but  only  transmuted. 
It  may  be  replied  : 

{a)  Inasmuch  as  the  only  real  cause  is  a  first  cause,  the 
causal  judgment  fully  stated  is.  Every  event  must  have  a  first 
cause.  To  hold  that  the  mind  is  self-moved  in  willing  is  not 
merely  in  harmony  with  the  causal  judgment,  but  it  indicates 
the  very  experience  through  which  an  idea  of  causation  be- 
comes possible. 

{b)  Mechanical  laws  are  not  applicable  alike  to  the  material 
and  the  immaterial.  We  have  already  noticed  that  the  law 
now  under  consideration,  that  of  the  convertibility  of  energy, 
is  inapplicable  to  the  mental  sphere ;  in  other  words,  phys- 

»  Are  motives  the  cause  of  choice  ?  The  Edwardean  says  Yes  ;  the  Hbertarian 
says  No,  choice  or  volition,  so  far  from  being  caused  is  the  ground  of  our  notion  of 
cause.  The  fact  is  that  in  the  entire  conative  series  (idea  of  ends,  desire,  etc.)  no 
member  of  the  series  is  an  entity,  and  capable  of  being  a  cause,  but  is  a  stage  in 
the  activity  of  the  soul ;  and  the  soul,  in  passing  from  stage  to  stage,  acts  from  it- 
self, finding  in  each  of  its  acts  the  occasion,  not  the  cause  of  the  next  act. 


PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  149 

ical  motion  is  not  interchangeable  with  states  of  conscious- 
ness. The  case  should  be  restated  from  the  present  point 
of  view. 

{ad)  Physical  energy  through  all  its  transmutations  is  the- 
oretically, and  to  some  extent  practically,  measurable  in  foot- 
pounds ;  but  no  state  of  consciousness  can  even  imaginably 
be  reduced  to  foot-pounds,  or  otherwise  expressed  in  terms 
of  physics.  Thoughts  are  not  so  many  linear  feet  deep, 
or  square  feet  in  surface ;  feelings  are  not  literally  so  many 
pounds  strong,  or  liquid  measures  full. 

{bb)  Changes  in  states  of  consciousness  may  accompany 
physical  changes  ;  but  concomitance  is  not  convertibility. 
Thus,  when  impact  upon  the  body  is  attended  by  an  idea  or 
emotion,  the  entire  energy  applied  to  the  body  is  taken  up  in 
producing  physical  results  ;  none  of  it  is  abstracted  and  con- 
verted into  an  idea  or  emotion.  The  body  reacts  upon  the 
impinging  agent,  and  transmits  an  impulse  to  the  objects 
which  form  its  own  support ;  but  the  idea  or  emotion  does 
not  in  strictness  react  upon,  the  body,  and  is  not  transmitted 
to  any  object  behind  itself. 

Conversely,  the  will  may  release  energy  stored  in  the  nerves 
and  muscles,  but  it  does  not  produce  energy. 

{cc)  If  the  volition  were  caused  by  the  impact,  if  physical 
energy  were  converted  through  sensation  into  volition, 
through  volition  into  action,  then  the  circuit  up  the  sensory 
nerves  and  down  the  motor  nerves  would  always  be  a  closed 
circuit,  and  the  impact  would  invariably  be  followed  by  a 
proportionate  release  of  muscular  energy  ;  but  it  is  admitted 
that  the  will  may  or  may  not  cause  a  responsive  movement. 

In  other  words,  the  mind,  in  being  subjected  to  impres- 
sions, is  a  terminus  ad  quern;  in  forming  volitions  it  is  a 
terminus  a  quo. 


1^^  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL 

B.   On  the  part  of  Libertarianism. 

Against  the  position  that  choice  always  corresponds  to 
character  it  is  argued  : 

{a)  Adam  must  have  had  power  of  contrary  choice  before 
the  fall,  because  he  then  decided  contrary  to  the  whole  bent 
of  his  nature. 

{b)  Fallen  men  retain  power  of  contrary  choice  within 
certain  limits.  The  will,  considered  as  the  general  movement 
of  the  soul,  cannot  be  changed  by  us  ;  but  the  will,  as  faculty 
of  single  volitions,  has  power  of  contrary  choice  in  indifferent 
matters,  and  even  in  moral  concerns  is  sufficiently  free  to 
modify  character. 

(f)  The  will  can  control  motives  by  directing  attention  to 
one  rather  than  to  another  motive. 

{d)  Consciousness  distinctly  testifies  that  we  can  decide 
either  for  or  against  any  given  motive,  however  strong. 

In  reply,  we  note  : 

{ad)  The  theory  of  the  will  must  describe  the  conative 
powers  of  man  as  he  now  is,  not  as  he  was  in  a  state  from 
which  he  has  lapsed,  and  which  is  confessedly  inexplicable. 
An  account  of  the  will  which  accounted  for  the  fall  would 
undo  the  fall,  and  thus  would  prove  its  own  undoing. 

{bb)  However  indifferent  an  action  may  seem  to  be,  it  re- 
mains for  one  voluntary  act  to  be  pointed  out  which  in  no 
way  corresponds  to  what  the  agent  was  when  he  decided  upon 
it.  On  any  theory,  acts  which  express  character  intensify  the 
characteristics  they  express. 

{cc)  In  holding  the  attention  to  one  motive  rather  than 
another,  the  will  must  be  acting  under  the  influence  of  some 
motive  and  be  exhibiting  a  marked  difference  between  man 
and  man. 

{dd)  The  mind  is  not  conscious  that  it  is  free  to  like  what 


PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  151 

it  dislikes ;  it  is  conscious  that  it  can  have  a  preference.  It 
is  not  conscious  that  likings  are  at  our  command. 

(ee)  If  unchangeability  of  preference  excludes  freedom, 
then  to  prefer  with  all  one's  strength  is  not  to  prefer  at  all, 
and  to  love  so  much  that  one  cannot  help  loving  is  to  love  no 
longer.  That  is  to  say,  because  God  is  love  he  does  not  love, 
and  because  he  cannot  choose  to  sin  he  does  not  choose  to 
be  holy. 

(ff)  The  testimony  of  consciousness  and  experience  can 
be  reconciled.  If  a  man  knew  himself  as  God  knows  him, 
his  choices  would  seem  to  be  as  certain  as  they  really  are ; 
but  while  they  seem  to  be  uncertain  they  must  equally  seem 
to  be  free.  Responsibility  could  not  be  predicated  of  man  if 
this  were  not  so. 

This  review  of  theories  leads  to  the  following — 

3.   Conclusions. 

A.  The  ego  is  self-determined  and  ipso  facto  free.  It  can 
form,  and  knows  that  it  can  form,  a  preference. 

B.  All  free  self-determinations  or  volitions  are  conditioned 
by  the  capabilities  of  the  self,  and,  in  moral  quality,  represent 
the  moral  state  of  the  self.  This  is  the  reign  of  determinism, 
or  inherent  necessity. 

C.  Necessity  and  freedom  coincide  in  the  fact  that  voli- 
tions correspond  to  character.  Necessity  is  seen  herein,  that 
a  moral  being  tnust,  freedom  is  seen  herein,  that  he  may, 
will  conformably  to  what  he  is.  No  stricter  necessity 
can  be  conceived  than  that  a  man's  volitions  are  deter- 
mined by  his  character ;  and  yet  no  larger  liberty  can  be 
imagined  than  that  a  man  can  have  choices  distinctively  his 
own. 

D.  As  to  formal  freedom  we  now  see  that,  if  a  moral  being 


152  PENAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL 

is  depraved,  right  volitions  are  impeded  by  wrong  desires,  an:I 
wrong  volitions  are  opposed  by  conscience,  by  reason,  indeed 
by  the  very  constitution  which  he  would  violate.  In  this  case 
he  is  still  formally  free,  since  his  volition  follows  his  actual 
preference  ;  but  he  is  not  really  free,  because  some  aroused 
faculty  ever  resists  his  choice. 

E.  As  to  real  freedom  we  may  feel  assured  that,  in  th6 
state  of  innocence  lost,  or  of  holiness  to  be  attained,  all 
desires  are  normal  and  all  functions  harmoniously  fulfilled. 
This  is  real  freedom,  not  merely  because  it  is  morally  good, 
but  because  moral  goodness  involves  exemption  from  restraint 
and  full  co-operation  of  all  one's  powers  toward  a  preferred 
end.  The  "  law  of  liberty  "  is  spontaneous  obedience  to  law 
(James  i  :  25  ;   i  Cor.  9  :  21). 

IV.    DERANGEMENT    OF    CONSCIENCE. 

In  depraving  the  affections  the  fall  has  impaired  the  func- 
tion of  moral  self-judgment.  Every  step  in  the  process  is 
disordered. 

The  following  steps  are  recognizable  :  Intuition  that  there 
is  a  difference  between  right  and  wrong ;  moral  standards 
furnished  by  the  normal  requirements  of  our  own  constitu- 
tion, by  the  sacred  Scriptures,  by  the  instructions  of  parents 
or  of  priests,  by  social  convention  ;  judgment,  or  comparison 
of  moral  states,  desires,  or  acts  with  the  accepted  standard  ; 
a  feeling  of  duty  or  sense  of  obligation  to  take  the  course, 
whether  of  action  or  inaction,  which  the  judgment  has  pro- 
nounced to  be  the  right  course ;  and,  subsequent  to  con- 
duct, a  verdict  that  we  have  observed  or  have  violated  the 
recognized  standard,  together  with  a  correspondent  feeling 
of  complacency  or  compunction. 

Theology  is  not  concerned  with  deciding  whether  the  name 


INABILITY   AND   RESPONSIBILITY  I53 

conscience  should  be  given  to  this  entire  congeries  of  facul- 
ties and  functions,  according  to  popular  usage,  or  is  more 
strictly  applied  to  the  faculty  of  moral  self -judgment ;  we  are 
here  concerned  to  observe  that — 

The  fall,  and  the  sins  which  the  fall  has  entailed,  have  dis- 
ordered every  element  in  the  case.  The  intuition  that  right 
and  wrong  are  contraries  cannot  be  annulled,  but  it  may  be 
disregarded  ;  the  standard  accepted  is  often  vitiated ;  the  judg- 
ment is  generally  confused,  the  feeling  of  obligation  more  or 
less  dulled,  and  compunction  for  evil  correspondingly  en- 
feebled. 

§  34.  Inability  and  Responsibility. 

If  man  is  born  without  ability  to  obey  God,  is  he  respon- 
sible for  disobedience  .'' 

New  School  theologians  answer  that  responsibility  is  no 
greater  than  ability ;  but  that  man  is  responsible  because, 
although  morally  unable,  he  is  naturally  able  to  obey.  Old 
School  theologians  answer  that  responsibility  is  greater  than 
ability,  because  our  inability  is  due  to  the  sin  which  the  entire 
race  committed  in  Adam  as  either  its  federal  or  natural  head. 

The  issue  can  be  more  readily  decided  after  some  further 
consideration  of  the  terms  inability  and  responsibility. 

I.  inability. 

The  doctrine  of  the  New  School,  or  New  England,  theology, 
rests  on  the  proposed  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
ability.  By  natural  ability  is  meant  the  ability  to  obey  God 
if  one  chooses  ;  moral  inability  is  the  inability  to  choose. 
But  the  weakness  of  this  position  is  that — 

I.  The  converse  is  equally  true  :  a  man  cannot  obey  unless 
he  can  choose  to  obey.  If  then  he  cannot  choose  to  obey, 
his  hypothetical  natural  ability  is  actually  natural  inability. 


154  INABILITY   AND   RESPONSIBILITY 

2.  This  theory  mistakes  ability  to  choose  some  alternative, 
that  is,  to  form  a  preference,  for  ability  to  choose  or  prefer 
either  of  opposite  alternatives.  Inborn  likes  and  dislikes  but 
make  the  choice  more  decided.  The  New  School  vindication 
of  responsibility  is  therefore  inadequate. 

The  Old  School  view  finds  support  in  the  nature  of — 

n.    RESPONSIBILITY. 

The  usual  defense  of  the  Old  School  position,  namely,  that 
the  race  is  responsible  for  the  issue  of  its  probation  in  Adam 
may  be  a  sound  defense  ;  but  the  ethical  element  is  so  prom- 
inent in  the  case  as  it  stands  that  it  is  more  satisfactory  to 
consider  it  as  it  stands.  From  this  point  of  view  we  argue 
that  men  are  responsible  for  the  sinfulness  from  which  they 
cannot  free  themselves,  on  the  grounds  that — 

1.  Men  actually  choose  evil.  If  they  are  so  wicked  that 
they  cannot  help  so  choosing,  this  does  not  neutralize  the 
wickedness  of  such  a  choice  ;  otherwise  the  more  wicked  one 
grows  the  less  wicked  he  is,  and  Satan  himself  has  become 
blameless. 

2.  Men  are  responsible  for  wrong  choices  precisely  be- 
cause these  choices  represent  their  characters.  "  Either 
make  the  tree  good,  and  its  fruit  good ;  or  make  the  tree  cor- 
rupt, and  its  fruit  corrupt :  for  the  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruit "  (Matt.  I2  :  33).  If  human  nature  is  helplessly  evil,  its 
condition  is  not  only  the  more  pitiable,  but  morally  the  worse, 

3.  If  the  fact  that  man  cannot  eradicate  the  propensity  to 
sin  destroys  responsibility  for  sin,  then  the  fact  that  God  can- 
not escape  the  preference  for  good  destroys  the  merit  of  his 
holiness  (James  i  :  13,  17). 

4.  If  law  were  but  precept  and  all  penalty  were  imposed, 
if  right  and  wrong  were  merely  what  the  Divine  will  exacts  or 


INABILITY   AND    RESPONSIBILITY  155 

forbids,  then  we  might  well  ask  whether  it  is  not  arbitrary  to 
lay  an  impracticable  law  upon  men  born  depraved,  and  to 
punish  them  for  sin  which  they  cannot  avoid.  But  if  law  is 
in  the  nature  of  being,  and  if  penalty  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  violating  law,  then  responsibility  must  be  inter- 
preted from  the  point  of  view  which  these  facts  supply.  We 
notice,  therefore,  that — 

While  responsibility  or  answerability  literally  means  liabil- 
ity to  be  called  to  account  and  punished,  it  is  really  a  figura- 
tive term,  and  that  which  it  stands  for  is,  in  the  last  analysis, 
the  fact  that  consequences  are  inseparable  from  character 
and  conduct.  An  evil  nature  entails  misery  both  by  force  of 
its  abnormal,  self-injurious  activities,  and  through  the  repug- 
nance which  it  cannot  but  awaken  in  moral  beings,  above 
all  in  a  holy  God.  Responsibility  then  resides  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  and  cannot  be  lifted  from  the  race,  so  long  as  the 
race  is  depraved  (Ps.  51:5;  Eph.  2  :  3). 

5.  To  say  that  it  is  not  right  for  consequences  so  im- 
measurably evil  to  follow  the  fall  of  the  first  pair,  is  to  forget 
that  right  is  conformity  to  the  natures  of  the  things  concerned. 
It  is  precisely  because  law  belongs  to  our  nature,  that  penalty 
is  provided  for  in  the  same  way.  If  then  it  is  unnatural  and 
wrong  to  sin,  it  is  natural  and  right  to  be  punished.  God's 
aversion  to  the  inherently  bad  is  normal,  not  arbitrary.  The 
reverse  would  be  arbitrary  and  abnormal. 

6.  But  if  the  question  is  asked,  why  God  allowed  the  race 
to  be  propagated  after  it  fell,  no  answer  can  be  given  until 
one  is  found  for  the  question  why  he  created  our  first  parents, 
foreknowing  that  they  would  fall.  The  problem  of  human 
responsibility  thus  merges  into  the  insoluble  moral  enigma  of 
the  existence  of  evil,  and  the  solemn  but  faith-inviting  mys- 
tery of  the  decrees  of  a  personal  and  righteous  God. 


156  THE  SALVATION   OF   INFANTS 

§  35.  The  Salvation  of  Infants. 

If  infants  share  a  depravity  which  necessarily  leads  to  acts 
of  sin,  are  dying  infants  saved  ?  The  Scripture  does  not 
state  that  they  are  saved,  but  it  justifies  such  an  inference. 

1.  It  recognizes  the  inability  of  children  to  distinguish  be- 
tween right  and  wrong,  and  permits  us  to  believe  that  this 
places  them  under  the  favorable  judgment  of  God  (Deut.  i  : 
39  ;  Jonah  4:11;  Rom.  9:11). 

2.  Our  Saviour  warned  his  followers  that,  unless  they 
became  as  little  children,  they  should  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  (Matt.  18  :  3),  and  on  another  occasion  he 
blessed  the  little  children,  saying,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven"  (Matt.  19  :  14).  He  did  not  say  "of  these  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  but  "  of  such  "  as  these.  But  it  is  not 
easy  to  believe  that  he  could  take  the  children  in  his  arms, 
bless  them,  and  promise  heaven  to  those  that  become  like 
them,  if  he  had  known  that  dying  infants  go  to  perdition. 

3.  The  parallel  in  Rom.  5  :  12-21  between  the  effects  of 
Adam's  sin  and  of  Christ's  obedience — especially  the  intima- 
tion in  verse  14,  that  as  Adam  brought  death  upon  some  who 
did  not  sin  as  he  had  sinned,  so  Christ,  in  conferring  benefits, 
would  be  found  the  antitype  of  Adam — and  the  distinct  state- 
ment of  verse  20,  that  "where  sin  abounded,  grace  super- 
abounded,"  warrant  the  conviction  that  any  harm  which  Adam 
did  to  those  who  do  not  themselves  choose  the  ways  of  sin  is 
a  harm  for  which  Christ  has  provided  a  remedy. 

4.  As  a  view  of  Jesus  at  death  entirely  transforms  into  his 
likeness  those  who  already  love  him  (i  John  3  :  2),  so  the 
Holy  Spirit  may  change  the  heart  of  a  child  as  he  goes  hence 
by  a  vision  of  him  who  won  the  trust  of  children  while  on 
earth. 


PART  IV 

SOTERIOLOGY 
§  36.  Preparation  for  the  Coming  of  Christ. 
Our  Saviour  came  in  the  fullness  of  time  (Gal.  4  :  4). 

I.  PREPARATION  TO  ACCEPT  THE  GOSPEL. 

1.  Judaism. 

(a)  The  Hebrew  people  had  acquired  and  were  propagating 
faith  in  the  unity  and  the  perfections  of  God. 

(d)  The  Law  had  taught  how  strict  and  how  hopeless  were 
the  requirements  of  God.  A  soulless  legalism  would  have 
remained  as  its  shriveled  fruit,  had  not  help  come. 

The  strongly  symbolical  character  of  the  Levitical  institu- 
tions was  already  degrading  even  legalism  into  formalism, 
until  only  fulfillment  of  types  by  the  Antitype  could  lift  the 
Jews  out  of  a  half-conscious  hypocrisy  or  a  quite  conscious 
disobedience. 

(c)  Prophecy  pointed  to  this  period,  and  gave  rise  among 
many  beside  Jews  to  an  intent  expectation  of  the  Messiah. 

2.  Heathenism. 

(a)  As  a  religion,  heathenism  had  lost  its  power  to  encour- 
age virtue,  and  had  sunk  into  a  vicious  superstition,  rejected 
by  the  wise.  At  an  earlier  period  heathen  religions  were 
local  and  the  national  gods  were  tenaciously  adhered  to  as  a 
point  of  patriotic  duty  and  pride  ;  but  even  the  popular  regard 
for  them  had  now  become  weakened  by  the  intermingling  of 
peoples  and  customs. 

(6)  As  a  philosophy,  heathenism   had  passed  its  creative 

o  157 


158  HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST 

period  without  providing  any  clear  assurance  as  to  God, 
virtue,  or  immortality ;  was  now  expending  its  strength  in 
wild  conjectures  or  in  vain  disputes,  and  giving  over  the 
greater  part  of  its  disciples  to  pride,  to  luxury,  or  to  despair. 

II.    PROVISIONS    TO    EXTEND    THE    GOSPEL. 

1.  The  Roman  Empire  was  in  its  early  prime,  and  the 
world  was  at  peace.  Attention  could  now  be  given  to  the 
religion  of  peace,  and  security  was  afforded  for  the  journeys 
of  its  messengers. 

2.  The  Greek  language  had  been  despoiled  of  its  purity  by 
the  Macedonian  ascendency,  by  Egyptian  and  Oriental  use, 
and  especially,  for  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  by  the 
inroad  of  Hebraisms  ;  but  these  very  changes  rendered  it  a 
better  vehicle  of  Christian  ideas,  while  its  wide  diffusion  as- 
sured to  the  gospel  an  adequate  medium  for  publication. 

3.  As  usual  upon  the  introduction  of  new  and  needed 
truth,  existing  beliefs  and  institutions  antagonised  Christi- 
anity. The  very  advantages  with  which  it  began  its  work 
speedily  turned  into  formidable  obstacles.  Yet,  in  so  doing, 
they  but  afforded  a  higher  service.  Jewish  bigotry  hastened 
the  spread  of  the  Good  News  among  the  Gentiles ;  the  con- 
tempt of  philosophers  stimulated  the  development  of  Chris- 
tian evidences,  and  by  necessity  of  doctrine ;  Roman  tyranny, 
while  demonstrating  the  vitality  of  the  new  faith,  purged  and 
compacted  the  church. 

§  37.  Humanity  of  Christ. 

All  who  saw  Christ  knew  that  he  was  a  man. 
{a)  He  possessed  and  exercised  both  the  bodily  and  spiritual 
faculties  of  a  man. 

{b)  He   ran  a  man's  career.     He  was  born  of  a  woman, 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST  I59 

grew  in  every  way  as  a  child  (Luke  2  :  52),  and  died  as  men 
die. 

(c)  That  all  this  was  not  illusion  is  assured  by  his  calling 
himself  both  "  man  "  (John  8  :  40),  and  "  Son  of  man  "  (Matt. 
8  :  20). 

But  Christ  was  so  superior  to  other  men  as  to  suggest 
some  mysterious  difference  from  them.  Although  the  ideal 
man  is  a  miniature  image  of  God,  yet  when  that  unique  image 
appeared  in  Christ,  it  could  not  but  raise  the  question  now  to 
be  considered,  whether  he  was  no  more  than  a  man. 

§  38.  Divinity  of  Christ. 
I.  method  of  inquiry. 

1.  Textual  method.  Belief  in  the  divinity  of  our  Lord 
underlies  the  entire  New  Testament  representation  of  him. 
Numerous  texts,  when  interpreted  without  prejudice,  declare 
special  aspects  of  his  divinity.  Yet  reliance  upon  proof-texts 
alone  is  open  to  the  objection  that  each  one  of  them  can  be 
made  to  mean  something  else  than  the  deity  or  proper  divin- 
ity of  Christ. 

2.  Historical  method.  But  we  may  adopt  the  method  by 
which  the  followers  of  Christ  in  his  own  and  every  subsequent 
age  have  reached  their  persuasion  that  he  is  very  God.  It  is 
the  method  of  becoming  acquainted  with  him,  the  critico-his- 
torical  method  upon  which  all  recent  portrayals  of  his  career 
and  estimates  of  his  character  have  been  formed.  It  is  not 
limited  to  citation  of  passages  that  offer  direct  evidence  to  his 
proper  divinity.  It  studies  every  hint  which  will  help  to  place 
us  among  his  immediate  followers,  and  open  our  minds  to  the 
impressions  they  received. 


l6o  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 

(a)  Its  results.  An  idea  concerning  Christ  formed  in  this 
way  will  not  be  wavering  and  vague.  While  romancers  are 
fated  to  rob  their  heroes  of  reality  in  proportion  as  they  exalt 
them,  and  while  laudation  of  historical  characters  provokes 
doubt,  the  perfections  of  Jesus  give  us  a  clear  conception  of 
him,  and  make  his  image  as  substantial  as  it  is  unique.  But 
as  our  conception  of  his  personality  grows  clear  and  firm, 
insight  into  his  nature  deepens,  and  his  divinity  is  revealed 
before  our  eyes. 

(d)  Its  facility.  It  is  not  a  hard  method  to  apply.  Any 
attentive  reader  may  share  the  daily  wonderment  of  the  dis- 
ciples, their  efforts  at  insight,  their  consultations,  and  some- 
times rapidly  crystallizing  convictions,  as  they  saw  the  proofs 
that  their  leader  could  not  be  less  than  the  church  since  that 
day  has  steadily  held  him  to  be. 

This  advantage  is  fully  experienced  only  upon  detailed 
study  of  the  Master's  life.  The  most  that  can  here  be  at- 
tempted is  to  classify  the  more  important  data  which  such  a 
method  of  study  brings  to  view. 

II.    EVIDENCE    FOR    THE    DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

(I)  Mary  knew  Jesus  was  divine. 

She  knew  that  he  was  begotten  by  God ;  she  was  aware 
of  the  marvels  that  attended  his  birth  ;  had  learned  from 
his  own  lips,  when  he  was  a  lad  of  twelve,  that  he  was 
himself  conscious  of  a  unique  relation  to  God  ;  "  kept  all 
these  sayings  in  her  heart "  (Luke  2:51),  and  was  ready,  when 
he  attended  the  wedding  at  Cana,  for  some  extraordinary  oc- 
currence. 

Yet  her  officiousness  both  then  (John  2  :  3,  4)  and  later 
(Matt.  12  :  46-50)  shows  that,  having  grown  familiar  with 


DIVINITY   OF  CHRIST  l6l 

Jesus  In  ordinary  relations,  and  not  yet  knowing  how  his  di- 
vinity bore  upon  his  mission,  she  did  not  appreciate  his 
divinity  as  a  fact.  Possibly  this  explains  in  part  why  Mary's 
knowledge  seems  not  to  have  been  for  any  one  of  his  disci- 
ples the  basis  of  belief  in  Christ.  Although  at  a  later  date 
felt  to  be  of  the  deepest  importance,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
her  testimony  to  the  miraculous  conception  would  at  first  have 
been  accepted. 

(II)   The  Disciples  became  satisfied  of  his  divinity: 

I .  From  what  they  witnessed  in  him. 

{a)  The  impressiveness  of  his  personality  was  felt  by  his 
immediate  followers  from  the  beginning,  and  drew  them 
after  him  at  his  call. 

(b)  His  original  knowledge  of  God,  with  the  boldness  and 
evident  truth  of  his  teaching,  astonished  even  chance  hear- 
ers (Matt.  7  :  28,  29) ;  while  his  own  claim  but  gave  form 
to  the  conviction  that  he  had  such  knowledge  as  only  the 
Son  of  God  could  possess  (Matt.  11  127;  John  6  :  46  ;  7  : 
15.  16 ;  9  :  5  ;  16  :  30).  The  Master  showed  habitually  an 
understanding  of  man  too  complete  to  be  regarded  as  merely 
human  (Matt.  9:4;  John  2  :  24,  2  5  ;  6  :  64),  and  which  be- 
came especially  impressive  when  it  was  exercised  upon  the 
disciples  themselves.  Witness  the  cases  of  Nathanael  and 
Peter  (John  i  :  48,  49  ;  2 1  :  1 7). 

{c)  His  power  to  work  miracles,  although  used  under  the 
Father's  direction  (John  5  :  19,  30;  6  :  38  ;  10  :  18),  was 
inherent,  not  derived  (Matt.  8:3;  Luke  6  :  19;  8  146; 
John  II  :  22,  cf.  25).  Some  who  did  not  recognize  this 
fact  were  led  by  his  miracles  to  wonder  at  him  (Mark  4:41; 
6  :  2),  others  to  acknowledge  that  he  was  a  prophet  (John  2  : 
23  ;  3:2),  and  his  disciples  at  length  to  worship  him  as  the 


1 62  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 

Son  of  God.     Compare  the  effects  on   their  minds  of  the 
first  and  second  stillings  of  the  tempest  (Matt.  8  :  27  ;   14  : 

33)- 

{d)  The  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  which  he  challenged  men 
to  deny  (John  8  :  29,  46,  55  ;  14  :  30 ;  cf.  Matt.  27  :  4 ;  2 
Cor.  5  :  21),  was  never  before  seen  in  man,  won  even  from 
demons  the  title  "the  Holy  One  of  God"  (Luke  4  :  34), 
from  his  disciples  that  of  "  the  Holy  One  and  the  Just " 
(Acts  3  :  14;  cf.  2  :  27  ;  7  :  52),  and  must  have  deepened 
profoundly  the  conviction  that  he  was  more  than  man. 

(e)  Three  of  his  disciples  witnessed  his  divine  glories  at 
his  transfiguration,  and  were  charged  by  a  voice  from  heaven 
to  listen  to  him  as  the  beloved  Son  of  God  (Matt.  17  :  1-5  ; 
cf.  John  I  :  14;  2  Peter  i  :  16-18). 

(/)  The  superhuman  dignity  as  well  as  extremity  of  his 
sufferings,  which  deeply  impressed  even  the  centurion  and 
the  soldiers  (Matt.  27  :  54),  made  it  easy  for  believers  after- 
ward to  glory  in  the  cross. 

(^)  The  resurrection  was  the  supreme  attestation  of  his 
divinity  (Rom.  i  :  4).  His  followers  so  accepted  it,  and  wor- 
shiped him  (Matt,  28  : 9,  17;  Luke  24  :  52).  Thomas, 
when  satisfied  that  Jesus  had  really  risen,  hailed  him  as  Lord 
and  God  (John  20  :  28.  See  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  in 
loco,  for  a  thorough  refutation  of  the  attempts  to  belittle 
this  confession). 

The  ascension  visibly  completed  the  process  of  the  resur- 
rection and  was  regarded  as  an  enthronement  of  Jesus  (Acts 
2  :  33,  34)- 

2.  What  Jesus  from  time  to  time  asserted  concerning  himself 
strengthened  and  justified  the  impression  made  by  his  char- 
acter and  acts.     He  claimed — 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST  163 

(a)  The  divine  attributes  of  eternity, — and  in  the  words, 
••Before  Abraham  was  I  am,"  he  assumed  the  divine  title  re- 
vealed unto  Moses  (John  8  :  58  ;  cf.  Exod.  3  :  14;  John  i  : 
I  ;  17  :  5) ;  of  omnipotence  (Matt.  28  :  18  ;  John  $  :  21  ;  10  : 
28) ;  of  omnipresence  (Matt.  28  :  20). 

[d)  The  divine  prerogatives  of  lordship  over  the  Sabbath 
(Mark  2  :  28) ;  of  forgiving  sin  (Matt.  9:6;  Luke  7  :  48,  cf. 
Ps.  130  :  4) ;  of  answering  prayer  (John  14  :  13,  14) ;  of  send- 
ing forth  the  Holy  Spirit  (Luke  24  :  49  ;  John  1 5  :  26  ;  16  :  7). 

(c)  Oneness  with  God  not  reducible  to  mere  agreement  of 
purpose  (John  10  :  30  ;   14:9;   16:15;   17:10); 

(d)  Unique  relation  to  his  followers.  In  his  own  person 
Christ  was  Christianity,  its  means  of  access  to  God,  its  doc- 
trine, its  vitalizing  energy  (John  14  :  6,  cf.  6  :  35,  53-5.8  ; 
10  :  9;  II  :  25). 

(Ill)  Evidence  to  the  Apostolic  Church. 

1.  The  Holy  Spirit  testifies  that  Christ  is  divine.  It  was 
his  special  office  to  do  this  (John  i  5  :  26 ;  16:14);  and  this 
office  he  accomplished — 

{a)  By  his  miraculous  gifts,  an  attestation  which  Christ 
had  promised  (John  14:12;  Acts  2  :  33  ;  3  :  16  ;  Heb.  2  : 4). 

{b)  By  imparting  life  in  Christ,  and  thus  witnessing  at 
once  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  and  the  sonship  of  believers  (i 
Cor.  12  :  3  ;  i  John  4  :^2  ;  5  :.9-ii  ;  cf.  John  16  :  14,  15  ; 
Rom.  8  :  16,  17). 

2.  The  Offices  of  Christ  evidently  involved  divinity, 

{a)  This  was  felt  to  be  the  case  with  his  redemptive  offices. 
Thus,  his  service  as  a  ransom  (Matt.  20  :  28  ;  i  Tim.  2  :  6), 
the  sufficiency  of  his  sacrifice  (Heb.  7  :  35-28  ;  9  :  13,  14), 
and  the  efficacy  of  his  intercession  (Rom.  8  :  34 ;  Heb.  7  : 
25),  alike  imply  his  divinity. 


l64  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 

(p)  It  was  clear  that  his  more  general  relations  as  creator 
(John  1:3;  Col.  I  :  16;  Heb.  i  :  2),  sustainer  (John  1:4; 
Col.  1:17;  Heb.  I  :  3),  ruler  (Matt.  28  :  18  ;  i  Cor.  15  :  24, 
25;  Phil.  2  :  9-11),  judge  (Matt.  25  :  31-46;  John  5  :  22  ; 
Acts  10  :  42  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  10),  by  whatever  means  they  be- 
came known,  must  be  regarded  as  prerogatives  of  Deity. 

3.  Now,  at  length  the  Old  Testament  yielded  its  hidden 
meanings,  and  was  constantly  appealed  to  in  support  of  the 
claims  of  Christ. 

{a)  The  "  Angel  of  the  Covenant "  was  referred  to  by  the 
Pentateuch  in  a  way  which  must  have  perplexed  the  monothe- 
istic Jews,  now  as  a  messenger  of  Jehovah,  now  as  Jehovah 
himself  (Gen.  16  :  7,  13  ;  18  :  1-3,  13,  14,  17,  20;  Exod.  3  : 
2-6,  14 ;  13  :  21,  cf.  14  :  19  ;  Josh.  5  :  13-15  ;  Isa.  63  :  9- 
14).  Both  Malachi  (3:1)  and  Paul  (i  Cor.  10  :  4,  9)  identify 
him  with  the  Messiah. 

{b)  Certain  of  the  Messianic  Psalms  exalt  Christ  as  divine 
(Ps.  2,  no).  Passages  in  Isaiah  (9-1 1),  Micah  (5  :  1-5),  and 
Daniel  (7  :  9-14)  are  quoted  by  the  New  Testament  for  the 
divinity  of  our  Lord. 

The  conclusions  reached  concerning  the  nature  of  their 
Master  the  disciples  embodied  in  titles.  Having  received  so 
varied  and  progressive  evidence  thfit  he  was  divine,  it  was 
quite  naturally  and  significantly  that  they  applied  to  him  the 
titles  of  Deity,  such  as  God  (John  i  :  i  ;  20  :  28  ;  Rom.  9:5; 
Titus  2:13;  Heb.  i  :  8),  Lord,  the  Septuagint  equivalent 
for  Jehovah  (Mark  i  :  3,  cf.  Isaiah  40  :  3  ;  Rom.  10  :  13,  cf. 
Joel  2  :  32  ;  Heb.  i  :  10,  cf.  Ps.  102  ;  25),  Son  of  God  (Matt. 
16  :  16;  Luke  i  :  32,  35;  John  5  :  18;  Acts  9  :  20,  the 
Gospel  and  First  Epistle  of  John  with  the  epistles  of  Paul 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST  165 

passim),  Alpha  and  Omega  (Rev.  i  :  8,  11,  17  ;  21  :  6).  Such 
titles,  used  unhesitatingly  by  those  upon  whom  the  person- 
ality of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  had  made  its  impression,  can- 
not be  refined  into  emptiness,  but  were  quite  as  unmistakably 
meant,  when  used  by  them  as  when  used  by  us,  to  exalt  him 
as  divine. 

(IV)  Evidence  to  the  Post-apostolic  Church. 

1.  In  all  ages  the  church  has  received  from  Christ  the 
redemption  which  assured  the  apostolic  church  of  his  divinity. 

2.  In  all  ages  it  has  felt  bound  to  render  him  a  faith,  love, 
and  obedience  which  may  lawfully  be  yielded  to  God  alone. 
Unmistakably  the  Christian  consciousness  has  always  deified 
Christ,  and  has  been  persuaded  that  in  honoring  the  Son,  it 
honored  also  the  Father  who  sent  him  (John  5  :  23). 

This  persuasion,  renewed  in  every  generation,  the  church 
passes  on  to  successive  generations,  constantly  reinforced  by 
its  experience,  and  embodied  in  its  Confessions,  preaching, 
and  hymns. 

(V)  The  "  Chfist  of  History  "  is  divine. 

Assurance  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  grew  up  and  has 
been  justified  in  the  ways  above  described,  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that,  from  beginnings  so  obscure  and  with  a  life  so 
brief,  Christ  could  introduce  and  largely  control  a  new  era  in 
the  history  of  mankind.  It  is  unhistorical  and  even  irrational 
to  ascribe  to  delusion  the  benefits  which  Christendom  has 
enjoyed,  and  now  sees  steadily  increase,  in  proportion  as  our 
Lord  is  acknowledged  and  obeyed. 

HI.    THEORIES    CONCERNING    THE    NATURE    OF    CHRIST. 

The  more  important  theories  concerning  our  Lord  will  be 
noticed  in  connection  with  that  phase  of  Christology  to  which 


1 66  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 

they  specially  pertain.     Heretical  doctrines  as  to  his  nature 
are — 

1.  Docetisni,  which  denied  the  humanity  of  Christ,  and  as- 
serted that  his  body  was  only  a  phantom.  The  first  Epistle 
of  John  indicates  that  this  opinion  was  attracting  notice  even 
in  his  day  (i  John  i  :  1-3  ;  4  :  2,  3  ;  5:6,  20).  The  deci- 
sion at  Nicea  in  favor  of  the  proper  divinity  of  our  Lord  so 
emphasized  this  side  of  his  nature  as  practically  to  disparage 
his  humanity  ;  and  with  such  effect  that  even  Anselm  could 
take  the  essentially  docetic  position  that  our  Lord  did  not 
really  increase  in  wisdom,  but  only  seemed  to. 

2.  Humanitarianism,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  was  in  na- 
ture exclusively  human,  although  exceptionally  endued  with 
divine  influence.  This  view  was  held  under  various  forms  by 
the  early  Jewish-Christian  sects  of  Ebionites  and  Nazareans, 
by  the  Socinians  of  the  Reformation  period,  and  is  adopted 
by  most  modern  Unitarians — although  Unitarianism  as  such 
denies  only  the  Trinity,  not  necessarily  the  divinity  of  Christ. 

3.  Subordinationisvi,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  was  more 
than  man  but  less  than  God.  This  doctrine  has  taken  the 
following  forms  : 

{ci)  The  doctrine  of  Origen,  that  the  Son  was  eternally  gen- 
erated from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  hence  was  dependent 
and  subordinate  ; 

{b)  Artanism,  the  doctrine  that  the  Son  was  created  out  of 
nothing,  and  was  of  different  substance  from  the  Father  ;  that 
he  was  subordinate  to  the  Father,  but  above  all  creatures  ; 
divine,  but  not  Deity  ; 

(c)  Scmi-Arianisvi,  that  the  Son,  generated  before  all 
worlds  by  the  ivill  of  the  Father,  in  distinction  from  an  im- 
manent process  of  generation,  was  of  like  substance  with  the 
Father. 


REIvATIONS  OF  THE  TWO  NATURES   IN  CHRIST      167 

§  39.  Relations  of  the  Two  Natures  in  Christ. 

No  theme  has  been  more  fruitful  of  over-bold  dogmatizing, 
both  heretical  and  orthodox.  This  is  the  result  of  an  a  priori 
method.  Accepting  the  true  humanity  and  divinity  of  Christ, 
theologians  have  inferred  the  relations  of  his  natures.  But 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  on  the  one  hand,  is  too  large  a  matter 
to  be  handled  a  priori ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  although 
the  human  nature  of  Jesus  was  subject  to  well-known,  and 
to-day  more  considered  laws,  little  account  of  these  has  been 
made  in  framing  the  familiar  doctrines  upon  this  topic.  If 
we  strictly  apply  the  inductive  method,  if  we  make  our  appeal 
to  facts,  and  interpret  these  by  the  accepted  canon  that  an 
event  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  miraculous  unless  expressly  de- 
clared or  unmistakably  implied  to  be  such,  then  the  venerable 
dogmas  of  the  church,  as  well  as  the  theories  of  heretics,  will 
be  found  more  or  less  at  fault,  and  a  tentative  modification  of 
the  current  view  will  be  suggested. 

I.  Apollinaris  undertook  to  reconcile  the  differences  be- 
tween Arians  and  Athanasians  as  to  the  divinity  of  Christ  by 
compromising  about  the  relation  of  his  natures.  To  the 
Arians  he  would  concede  that  the  Logos  took  the  place  in 
Jesus  of  a  rational  human  spirit ;  and  with  the  Athanasians 
he  would  hold  that  the  Logos  was  very  God.  The  theory 
had  the  merit  of  simplicity,  and  has  been  repeatedly  revived. 
It  involved  a  trichotomous  view  of  human  nature,  and  was 
open  to  the  objections  : 

{a)  It  provided  for  an  incarnation,  but  not  for  an  assump- 
tion of  our  nature.  This  objection  is  curiously  reinforced 
by- 

{b)  The  known  laws  of  propagation.  Apollinarism  could 
be  true  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  rational  element  in 


1 68      RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES  IN  CHRIST 

men  is  derived  solely  from  fathers,  and  the  animal  element 
exclusively  from  mothers.  But  children  owe  as  much  of  the 
higher  as  of  the  lower  elements  of  their  natures  to  mothers, 
and  as  much  of  the  lower  as  of  the  higher  to  fathers. 

2.  Nestorianism,  arising  in  the  proposal  to  call  Mary  the 
Mother  of  Christ  instead  of  the  Mother  of  God,  was  probably 
at  first  not  very  different  from  the  opinion  still  frequently 
heard,  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  were  so  far  independent 
as  that  it  was  now  the  divine  and  now  the  human  that  spake 
or  acted  ;  but  the  orthodox  saw,  and  the  Nestorians  presently 
admitted,  that  this  virtually  made  Christ  to  consist  of  two 
persons.     The  objections  are  obvious  : 

(a)  Christ  was  visibly  as  compact,  single-minded,  and 
totally  engaged  a  being  in  all  he  did  as  is  any  being  of  one 
personality. 

{b)  Physiology  raises  the  objection  that  one  brain  can  serve 
for  but  one  person. 

3.  The  heat  of  the  Nestorian  controversy  hastened  the  de- 
velopment of  a  theory  already  proposed  in  germ  by  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  to  wit,  the  theory  of  Eutyches,  or  monophysitism, 
that  Christ  had  but  one  nature,  the  human  at  his  birth  being 
at  once  absorbed  by  the  divine. 

This  proposal  went  so  far  toward  docetism  as  to  find  the 
facts  in  the  career  of  our  Lord  arrayed  against  it,  and  quickly  to 
incur  the  reproach  of  heresy.  But  some  of  the  early  Luther- 
ans approached  nearly  to  this  point  in  advocating  consub- 
stantiation  as  a  theory  of  the  Eucharist. 

4.  The  council  of  Chalccdon  in  451  decreed  that  the  one 
person  of  Christ  was  formed  by  the  union  of  two  complete 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES  IN  CHRIST      1 69 

and  distinct  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human — the  doctrine 
of  diophysitism.  The  council  held  680-1  in  Constantinople 
added  that  each  nature  in  Christ  had  its  distinct  will,  the 
human  will  behig  held  in  constant  subjection  to  the  divine — 
the  doctrine  of  diothelitism.  The  decision  of  Constantinople 
is  but  the  logical  completion  of  that  formulated  at  Chalcedon  ; 
and  the  Chalcedonian  decree,  thus  rounded  out,  is  still  re- 
garded as  orthodox.  But  the  unflinching  exegetical  and  his- 
torical methods  of  our  day  have  re-opened  the  problem,  and 
grave  objections  are  felt  to  accepting  the  elaborate  formula  of 
Chalcedon  and  Constantinople. 

(a)  To  modern  psychology,  will  is  the  core  of  personality ; 
consequently,  to  affirm  two  wills  while  denying  two  persons  is 
to  sink  the  deductive  exposition  of  Christ's  nature  into  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms. 

(d)  Evidence  that  each  nature  in  Christ  was  perfect  and 
entire  is  abundant  and  conclusive ;  but  to  conceive  each  as 
distinct  from  the  other  is  to  ascribe  to  Christ  two  souls. 

(c)  In  addition  then  to  the  first  objection,  modern  physi- 
ology protests  that  one  human  body  can  serve  but  one  soul ; 
and  no  insufficiency  or  extra  sufficiency  peculiar  to  our  Lord's 
physical  organism  is  hinted  in  the  New  Testament. 

5.  A  realistic  modification  of  the  Chalcedonian  doctrine  is 
that,  while  Christ  possessed  two  complete  and  also  distinct 
natures,  his  human  nature  was  generic  and  impersonal,  so  that 
he  had  but  one  will.  This  theory  emphasizes  the  distinction 
between  nature  and  person. 

The  main  difficulty  connected  with  such  a  theory  is  onto- 
logical ;  namely,  that,  convenient  as  it  may  sometimes  be  to 
distinguish  in  thought  between  nature  and  person,  they  are 
never  separated  in  point  of  fact.     Indeed,  it  is  perhaps  as 

P 


lyo      RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES  IN  CHRIST 

unthinkable  that  a  complete  human  nature  should  exist  with- 
out  a  human  personality,  as  that  a  human  personality  should 
exist  apart  from  a  human  nature.  For  how  can  that  human 
nature  be  complete  which  lacks  the  personal  faculties  of  in- 
tellect, sensibility,  and  will,  or  either  of  these  ?  To  affirm, 
then,  a  merely  generic  and  impersonal  human  nature  is  tanta- 
mount to  denying  that  Christ  was  in  reality  a  man. 

i 

6.  An  overstrained  theory  of  Kenosis ;  namely,  that  the 
Logos  surrendered  at  the  incarnation  either  (according  to 
Thomasius)  his  relative  attributes,  omnipotence,  omniscience, 
omnipresence,  or  (according  to  Gess)  all  attributes  of  divinity, 
including  the  moral ;  and  that  the  Logos,  thus  depotentiated 
and  become  essentially  human,  was  united  to  a  human  soul,  as 
Thomasius  held,  or,  as  Gess  taught,  took  the  place  of  a  human 
soul  in  a  human  body  which  he  derived  from  Mary. 

A.  The  theory  of  Thomasius  is  open  to  the  objections,  that — 
{a)  While  the  New  Testament  represents  the  Logos  as  ac- 
cepting limitations  upon  the  exercise  of  his  powers,  it  shows 
with  equal  distinctness  that  they  existed  and  were  employed 
upon  occasion  under  direction  of  the  Father. 

{b)  The  humanizing  of  the  Logos  would  lodge  two  finite 
souls  in  one  body,  and  all  the  objections  from  the  data  of  the 
Gospels  and  from  the  evidently  applicable  laws  of  psycho- 
physics,  as  heretofore  noticed,  apply  at  this  point. 

B.  In  the  form  which  Gess  gave  to  the  theory  it  is  open  to 
the  special  objections,  that — 

ici)  While  we  cannot  know  a  priori  that  a  suspension  of 
infinite  powers,  including  the  moral,  is  impossible,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  to  lay  them  aside,  or  put  them  to  sleep,  would 
be  equivalent  to  surrendering  the  divinity  of  the  essence  in 
which  these  attributes  inhere. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES   IN  CHRIST      I '/I 

(b)  This  theory  allows  no  place  to  the  immaterial  element 
in  Jesus  which  mothers  bestow,  and  the  New  Testament  gives 
no  intimation  that  it  was  suppressed  by  miracle. 

(c)  In  consequence  of  this  defect,  the  theory  does  not  pro- 
vide for  such  a  union  of  the  Logos  with  our  nature  as  the 
atonement  requires. 

7. '  Theory  of  progressive  incarnation,  of  which  Dorner  is 
to  Americans  the  best  known  representative.  Based  on  the 
assumptions  that  the  Logos  can  neither  be  depotentiated  nor 
grow  in  power,  and  that  his  cosmic  offices  were  uninterrupted 
by  the  incarnation,  this  theory  teaches  that  at  the  miraculous 
conception  the  Logos  was  hypostatically  united  to  a  human 
nature  ;  that  as  the  human  in  Jesus  developed,  the  Logos  im- 
parted himself  more  and  more  in  the  same  proportion  ;  and 
that  at  the  resurrection  the  human  threw  off  all  limitations 
and  the  union  with  the  Logos  became  complete. 

(a)  The  ingenuity  of  this  theory,  especially  its  careful  adap- 
tation to  supposed  a  priori  demands  of  the  divine,  is  too 
marked  not  to  expose  it  to  suspicion  of  being  less  suited  to 
facts  in  the  life  of  our  Lord. 

{V)  We  do  not  know  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  Logos 
to  accept  limitation  of  attributes,  as  he  certainly  accepted 
limitation  upon  their  exercise ;  consequently  we  do  not  know 
but  that,  as  Kenotists  teach,  he  gradually  recovered  the  use 
of  powers  laid  aside. 

{c)  The  New  Testament  does  not  by  so  much  as  one  word  tell 
us  that  the  cosmic  offices  of  the  Logos  were  continued  during 
the  life  of  Christ  upon  earth,  but  rather  implies  that  they 
were  suspended  (Matt.  28  :  18  ;  John  17  :  5  ;  2  Cor.  8:9; 
Phil.  2  :  6,  7). 

{d)  The  theanthropos  grew,  and  in  all  things  acted  as  a 


172      RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO  NATURES  IN  CHRIST 

unit.  The  theory  is  therefore  confronted  by  the  difficulty 
which  it  sought  most  of  all  to  avoid  ;  namely,  so  far  as  the 
incarnation  proceeded,  the  Logos  was  still  subject  to  the 
limitations  which  the  human  imposed  until  after  the  resur- 
rection. 

(e)  A  question  is  provoked  concerning  the  effect  of  a  pro- 
gressive incarnation  upon  the  personality  of  Jesus :  as  the 
incarnation  progressed  was  that  personality  more  complete 
any  day  than  the  day  before  ?  Is  there  any  sign  that  it  was 
ever  less  or  more  entire  than  that  of  an  ordinary  man  ?  From 
the  point  of  view  of  the  relation  of  nature  to  person  we  look 
in  vain  for  facts  or  laws  which  warrant  this  conjectured  erec- 
tion of  a  personality. 

(/)  So  far  as  the  development  of  the  human  in  our  Lord 
was  either  physical,  mental,  or  moral,  so  far  the  divine  in  him 
might  find  the  human  its  increasingly  facile  instrument ;  but 
this  no  more  implies  the  progressive  incarnation  of  the  Logos 
than  the  training  of  a  human  body  implies  the  progressive  in- 
carnation of  an  ordinary  human  soul. 

8.  Theory  that  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ 
were  petfect  and  complete,  but  not  mivierically  distinct ;  or, 
since  the  theory  takes  its  cue  from  the  ordinary  laws  of 
human  propagation,  it  may  for  convenience  be  called  the 
physiological  theory.  The  points  covered  by  this  view  are  the 
following : 

I.   One  person  in  Christ. 

The  Logos,  having  personally  existed  from  eternity,  neces- 
sarily formed  the  basis  of  the  personal  consciousness  of 
Christ.  The  Logos  thus  knew  himself  as  Jesus.  But  our 
Lord  repeatedly  testified  that  his  consciousness  reached  back 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES   IN  CHRIST      1 73 

into  the  pre-incarnate  state ;  therefore  Jesus  knew  himself  as 
the  Logos. 

2.   One  species  in  Christ. 

As  to  the  qualitative  relationship  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  the  following  statements  may  be  made  with  some 
degree  of  confidence  : 

{a)  The  divine  and  human  spirits  are  similar  in  kind,  for 
man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God. 

ib)  Similarity  constituted  God  and  man,  together  with 
angels,  a  class  of  personal  beings  apart  from  all  other  orders 
of  living  things. 

if)  Among  personal  beings  God  and  man  were  akin,  be- 
cause the  divine  and  the  human  could  unite  in  Christ,  as  the 
father  and  the  mother  elements  unite  in  men. 

{d)  This  kinship  was  so  close  as  to  be  indistinguishable 
from  identity  in  species.  Though  the  human  and  the  divine 
factors  were  immediately  from  distinct  sources,  their  specific 
oneness  can  be  made  out  from — 

{aa)  The  unequivocal  testimony  of  Scripture  on  this  very 
point.  The  purport  of  the  statement  in  Gen  5  :  1-3,  that 
God  created  man  in  the  likeness  of  God,  and  that  Adam  be- 
gat Seth  in  his  own  likeness,  would  seem  to  be  that,  as  the 
image  of  Adam  was  reproduced  by  propagating  his  nature, 
so  the  nature  of  God  was  reproduced  by  creating  his  image. 
Clearly,  this  idea  was  not  repugnant  to  primitive  anthropo- 
morphism, and  is  steadily  winning  its  way  in  modern  Christ- 
ology.  Again,  the  same  formula  which  Luke  uses  to  state 
the  relation  of  each  son  to  his  father  in  the  genealogy  of 
Jesus,  he  employs  to  declare  the  relation  of  Adam  to  his 
Maker  (Luke  3  :  23-38).  We  must  not  infer  that  Adam 
was  actually  the  son  of  God,  but  it  is  plain  that  Luke  did 


174      RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES   IN  CHRIST 

not  consider  the  first  man  to  be  of  alien  species  from  the 
Creator.  The  angels  also  are  called  "  the  sons  of  God " 
(Job  I  :  6  ;  38  :  7). 

{bb)  The  facts  as  to  Christ  himself.  Jesus  was  not  a 
hybrid,  or  monstrous  offspring  of  two  alien  species.  The 
divine  could  normally  take  on  the  human  ;  the  human  was 
capable  of  hypostatic  union  with  the  divine.  Therefore 
Christ  never  seemed  the  less  divine  for  being  the  son  of 
Mary,  nor  the  less  human  because  he  was  the  Son  of  God. 

{cc)  If  the  powers  of  a  holy  human  spirit  could  be  ex- 
tended out  to  infinity,  such  a  spirit  would  be  recognized  as 
divine ;  because  essences  which  have  the  same  attributes  are 
of  the  same  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  the  in- 
finite powers  of  God  actually  came  under  human  limitations, 
so  far  the  Logos  showed  his  specific  identity  with  man. 

3.   One  sojil  in  Christ. 

Mary  contributed  to  her  son  precisely  so  much  as  other 
mothers  do,  both  of  body  and  spirit ;  while  God  conferred 
the  Logos  in  place  of  the  usual  paternal  element  in  the  soul 
of  a  child,  and  perhaps  created  the  paternal  factor  in  the 
body  of  Jesus. 

Thus  our  Lord  was  perfectly  divine,  because  the  Logos 
was  such  ;  and  perfectly  human,  because  his  nature  was 
'  derived  from  a  human  mother  and  from  a  Father  not  spe- 
cifically different  from  a  human. 

Yet  these  two  complete  natures  were  not  also  distinct, 
because  each  parent,  like  other  parents,  contributed  only 
enough  to  constitute  unitedly  one  body  with  one  soul  ; 
whereas,  the  natures  could  not  be  distinct  as  well  as  complete 
unless  each  parent,  contrary  to  all  example  and  all  informa- 
tion, contributed  to  Jesus  a  soul. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES   IN   CHRIST      175 

This  view  is  both  expanded  and  attested  by  the  following 
data : 

{a)  The  idea  of  the  annunciation,  as  reported  by  the  phy- 
sician Luke  (I  :  35),  is  distinctly  physiological,  and  notified 
the  virgin  that  a  divine  and  spiritual  would  be  substituted 
for  a  human  and  carnal  generative  act.  At  the  same  time 
the  New  Testament  affords  no  hint  that  the  mother's  func- 
tion was  in  any  respect  different  from  that  of  other  mothers. 

{b)  The  theanthropic  soul  of  Christ  performed  for  his 
body  the  usual  vital  functions  of  a  human  soul. 

{c)  Since  Christ  had  but  one  soul,  one  body  was  its  suf- 
ficient organ ;  and  this  theory  escapes  the  physiological 
objections  to  the  current  theory. 

[d)  Since  he  had  but  one  soul,  he  had  but  one  will ;  and 
the  theory  is  free  from  the  psychological  objection  to  the 
usual  view. 

{e)  The  noteworthy  quantitative  effects  of  the  incarnation 
are  thus  accounted  for.  As  in  all  other  cases  so  in  this  case 
the  Father  and  the  mother  determined  in  some  way  the 
powers  of  their  child.  The  union  of  elements  which  consti- 
tuted the  soul  of  Christ  could  not  but  equip  him  with  powers 
greater  than  those  of  a  mere  man,  but  in  exercise,  at  least, 
less  than  divine.  It  was  because  the  divine  enlarged  the 
capacity  of  the  human  that  Christ  had  insight  into  men's 
hearts  and  sympathy  with  their  lot  impossible  to  a  mere  man 
(John  2  :  24,  25  ;  Heb.  2  :  17,  18).  On  the  other  hand,  he 
did  not  know  all  that  God  knew  (Mark  13  :  32),  nor  speak 
aught  than  what  God  gave  him  to  speak  (John  12  :  49,  50), 
nor  do  anything  except  what  God  appointed  (John  5  :  19, 
20,  30 ;  10  :  18),  nor,  although  one  with  the  Father  (John 
10  :  30),  did  he  ever  claim  as  God-man  to  be  equal  with  God 
(John  14  :  28). 


176      RELATIONS  OF  THE  TWO   NATURES  iN  CHRlST 

(/)  Since  the  very  existence  of  the  divine-human  soul  of 
Christ  involved  the  inseparable  union  of  the  two  natures, 
each  took  part  in  all  that  the  other  did  or  bore.  It  thus  be- 
came possible  for  temptation  to  address  even  the  consciously 
divine  in  Christ  (Matt  4  :  3,  6,  9  ;  Heb.  2  :  17,  18  ;  4  :  15), 
for  the  divine  in  him  to  suffer  (Heb.  2:10;  5:8);  and 
even  for  the  divine  to  experience  death  in  the  only  ways  pos- 
sible to  a  human  soul ;  namely,  in  the  form  of  spiritual  death, 
or  conscious  separation  from  God  (Matt.  27  :  46),  and  in  the 
form  of  natural  death,  or  disruption  from  that  organism 
which  serves  as  its  normal  instrument  and  is  essential  to 
man's  completeness.  That  death  in  this  latter  sense  was  a 
real  deprivation  to  the  entire  theanthropic  soul  of  Christ  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  his  body  was  re-assumed. 

While  both  natures  took  part  in  the  entire  life  of  our 
Lord,  he  not  infrequently  spoke  of  one  or  the  other  side  of 
his  nature  (cf.  Matt.  4  :  4  with  11  :  27  ;  John  8  :  40  with 
ver.  58).  But  how  violent  the  fancy  is  of  separate  action  on 
the  part  of  either  nature  may  be  tested  with  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  John,  where  the  constant  transitions  required  by 
such  a  theory  would  be  incongruous  and  intolerable.' 

^  The  physiological  theory  may,  for  convenience,  be  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  Every  embryo,  at  the  first  moment  of  its  existence,  consists  essentially  of 
two  cells,  one  paternal,  the  other  maternal.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord  the  maternal 
cell  was  from  Mary,  and  the  paternal  cell  was  either  miraculously  created,  or 
miraculously  dispensed  with. 

2.  Both  cells  are  alive,  and  owe  their  vitality  to  their  respective  sources.  As 
the  cells  unite  to  form  a  new  organism,  the  parental  contributions  of  vitality  unite 
to  form  the  vital  principle  of  the  new  organism.  In  a  human  organism  this 
vitalizing  principle  is  the  sobI.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord,  Mary  furnished  the 
maternal  element  of  soul,  and  the  Father  furnished  the  Logos  as  the  paternal 
element.     Thus  Christ  had  one  soul  from  two  parental  sources. 

3.  His  one  soul  was  served  by  one  organism  and  had  one  set  of  faculties.  It 
was  one  in  intellect,  in  sensibility,  in  will. 


REI<ATIONS  OF  THE   TWO   NATURES   IN   CHRIST      1 77 

Cautions. 

The  physiological  theory,  like  every  other,  may  be  made 
ihe  basis  of  inferences  that  are  contrary  to  the  Bible.  These 
might  be  due  to  errors  in  logic  ;  or,  a  strictly  logical  deduc- 
tion from  a  correct  theory  might  be  misleading,  because  the 
nature  of  Christ  is  too  profound  a  mystery  to  justify  specu- 
lation. In  either  case  the  proper  corrective  is  found  in  the 
method  on  which  the  theory  itself  has  been  constructed ; 
namely,  the  submission  of  every  opinion  concerning  our 
Lord  to  the  unmistakable  data  of  the  New  Testament. 
Hence — 

1.  If  the  question  arise  how  a  human  nature  derived  in 
part  from  Mary  could  escape  depravity,  it  is  not  enough  to 
respond  with  an  a  priori  assurance  that  the  Father  would 
guard  his  Son  from  the  taint  of  original  sin  ;  but  these  oppo- 
site demands  are  reconciled  by  the  facts  stated  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  Christ  was  liable  "  in  all  points  to  be 
tempted  like  as  we  are,"  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  claimed 
to  be  free  from  sin. 

2.  If  the  energy  of  the  divine  in  him  seems  to  invite  the 
Eutychian  inference  that  the  divine  absorbed  the  human  as 
a  drop  of  honey  is  absorbed  by  the  sea,  the  safeguard  to 
faith  in  the  real  humanity  of  Christ  is  the  unequivocal  testi- 
mony of  Scripture  that  he  was  no  less  human  than  divine. 

3.  If  the  idea  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  were  not  of 
different  species  seems  to  favor  a  pantheistic  identification  of 
all  men  with  God,  this  tendency  must  be  withstood  by  the 

4.  It  was  perfect  in  divinity,  because  the  Logos  is  so,  and  perfect  in  humanity, 
because  the  divine  and  the  human  are  not  alien  in  species. 

5.  Both  elements  in  the  soul  of  Christ  modified  each  other's  powers,  and  both 
were  engaged  in  all  he  did  or  bare,  because  neither  existed  in  him  apart  from  the 
other. 


178  THE  TWO  STATES  OF  CHRIST 

fact  that  the  Bible  always  represents  the  divine  essence  as 
numerically  distinct  from  that  of  created  beings. 

§  40.  The  Two  States  of  Christ. 

i.  his  humiliation. 

This  consisted  in — 

I.  The  acceptance  by  the  Logos  of  human  limitations. 
The  most  important  Scripture  upon  this  subject  is  Phil.  2  •. 
6-8  (cf.  John  I  :  14).  According  to  this  classic  passage,  be- 
fore the  incarnation  the  Logos  was  "  in  the  form  of  God  "  ; 
but  by  the  incarnation  he  "  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant." 

We  cannot  with  entire  confidence  adopt  either  interpreta- 
tion of  the  kenosis  ;  to  wit,  that  the  Logos  laid  aside  some,  if 
not  all  of  his  attributes ;  or  that  he  retained  them  all,  and  in- 
cessantly repressed  their  exercise,  excepting  when  the  Father 
bade  him  use  them.  Against  the  first  supposition  stands  the 
difficulty  of  laying  aside  divine  attributes  without  relinquish- 
ing also  the  divinity  in  which  they  inhere.  Against  the  oppo- 
site view  is  the  apparent  teaching  of  the  passage  above 
quoted,  that  the  kenosis  took  place  in,  not  after,  the  assump- 
tion of  our  nature ;  the  unnaturalness  of  so  constant  and 
tremendous  a  self-suppression  ;  especially  the  absence  of  any 
sign  of  constraint  in  the  bearing  of  our  Lord,  and  the  pres- 
ence of  that  spontaneity  and  freedom  which  constitute  a  large 
part  of  his  charm  and  power. 

But  the  passage  above  cited,  taken  in  connection  with  other 
Scriptures,  seems  unequivocally  to  teach  that — 

(a)  To  be  "  in  the  form  of  God  "  was  to  follow  a  mode  of 
existence  precisely  opposite  to  that  of  a  servant ;  it  was  to 
exercise  without  restraint  the  divine  attributes,  and  to  enjoy 
in  full  the  divine  possessions  (2  Cor.  8  :  9). 


'The  two  states  of  christ  179 

{b)  To  empty  himself  was  correspondingly  to  "  become 
poor  "  by  relinquishing  those  possessions  (Matt.  8  :  20),  and 
to  submit  to  some  restraint  at  least  of  our  nature,  such  as 
bodily  weariness  and  sleep  (Mark  4  :  38  ;  John  4  :  6),  the 
mind's  ignorance  of  the  future  (Mark  13  :  32),  and  a  moral 
need  of  prayer  (Mark  i  :  35).  It  was  to  live  as  a  servant 
lives ;  that  is,  to  subordinate  his  activities,  as  men  should, 
to  the  divine  direction  (Matt.  4  :  4,  7,  10;  John  5  :  19,  36; 
8  :  28  ;   12  :  49,  50).     In  accepting  human  limitations — 

2.  The  theanthropos  came  under  the  conditions  of  growth 
from  childhood  to  manhood  (Luke  2  :  52),  was  subjected  to 
earthly  parents  (Luke  2  :  51),  and  to  the  discipline  of  pain 
(Heb.  5  :  8,  9  ;  cf.  2  :  10;  Matt.  4  :  i  ;  26  :  39-44;  John 
17  :  19). 

3.  Devotion  to  the  mission  on  which  he  was  sent  (Matt. 
20  :  28  ;  John  12  :  27)  required  him  to  accept  what  men  ac- 
count humiliation  (Isa.  53  :  1-9;  Luke  22  :  37),  and  even  as 
a  man  to  humble  himself  and  become  obedient  unto  the  death 
of  the  cross  (Phil.  2  :  8). 

II.    HIS    EXALTATION. 

1.  This  included  not  only  restoration  to  the  glory  which  he 
had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was  (John  17  :  5),  but 
additional  honor  earned  through  submission  to  God  (John  1 3  : 
31,  32  ;  Phil.  2  :  9,  10),  and  by  his  sacrificial  death  in  behalf 
of  men  (Rev.  5  :  12-14). 

2.  The  relation  of  his  humanity  to  his  exaltation  is  not 
entirely  clear.  Lutherans  believe  that  the  human  in  Christ 
received  divine  attributes,  so  that  even  his  body  is  ubiquitous. 
This  is  thought  to  be  assured  by  his  promise  to  be  with  his 
disciples  (Matt.  28  :  20),  by  Paul's  explanation  that  Christ 
ascended  to  heaven,  in  order  that  "  he  might  fill  all  things  " 


l8o  I'HE  TWO  STATES  OF  CHRIST 

(Eph.  4:10),  and  by  his  bodily  presence  with  the  bread  and 
wine  in  the  communion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  final  sub- 
jection of  the  Son  to  the  Father  (i  Cor.  15  :  27,  28)  cannot 
be  understood  of  his  human  nature  alone,  for  all  things  are 
not  "subdued  unto"  his  human  nature  alone;  nor  of  an  in- 
trinsic subordination  of  the  Logos,  for  this  is  an  inadmissible 
Arianism ;  nor  of  official  subordination  as  Mediator,  since  his 
subjection  is  to  follow  the  surrender  of  these  offices.  It 
must  then  be  understood  either  of  the  subordinate  offices 
which  belonged  to  the  pre-incarnate  Logos,  or  to  an  eternal 
conditioning  of  the  divine  by  the  human  in  his  nature. 

This  latter  explanation  would  be  in  harmony  with  Paul's 
unmistakable  and  usual  recognition  that  the  Father  is  also 
the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  now  as  when  upon  earth 
(Rom.  15:6,  Revised  Version  ;  i  Cor.  3:23;  11  :  3 ;  2  Cor. 
11:31;  Eph.  1:3,1 7).  Especially  ought  it  to  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  New  Testament  never  states  that  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  will  cease  to  be  finite  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  promises 
that  the  bodies  of  the  saints  shall  be  like  the  glorified  body  of 
our  Lord  (Phil.  3  :  21),  and  it  is  unwarrantable  to  expect  ubiq- 
uity for  these.  But  as  the  passage  which  foretells  the  final 
subjection  of  Christ  is  unique,  it  is  safer  not  to  assert  how 
his  exaltation  affects  the  relations  in  him  of  the  divine  and 
the  human. 

3.  But  the  relation  of  his  humanity  to  the  offices  of  his  ex- 
alted state  is  sufficiently  plain.  It  is  as  God-man  that  Christ 
dispenses  forgiveness  (Acts  5  :  31),  intercedes  for  Christians 
(Rom.  8  :  34),  is  Head  of  the  church  (Eph.  4  :  i  5,  16  ;  Col. 
I  :  18;  2  :  19),  overrules  all  things  in  the  interests  of  his 
church  (Matt.  28  :  18-20;  Eph.  i  :  22),  will  judge  all  men 
(John  5  :  22),  and  will  finally  put  down  all  enemies  (i  Cor.  1 5  : 
25  ;  Heb.  10  :  12,  13),  including  death  (i  Cor.  15  :  26). 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  l8l 

41.  The  Holy  Spirit. 


I.    HIS    DIVINITY. 


This  is  practically  undisputed.  If  his  personality  were  not 
insisted  upon,  his  divinity  would  not  be  denied.  Both  Testa- 
ments abound  in  phraseology  which  shows  that  the  Spirit  of 
God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  identified  with  the  Most  High. 

1.  He  is  called  God  (Luke  i  :  32,  35  ;  Acts  5  :  3,  4  ;  i 
Cor.  3  :  16). 

2.  Divine  attributes  are  recognized  in  him :  eternity  (Heb. 
9  :  14),  omnipotence  (Matt.  12  :  28),  omniscience  (i  Cor.  2  : 
10),  omnipresence  (Ps.  139  :  7-10;  i  Cor.  12  :  11). 

3.  Divine  prerogatives  and  acts  are  ascribed  to  him : 
blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  cannot  be  forgiven  (Matt.  12  :  31), 
he  creates  (Gen.  i  :  2),  regenerates  (John  3:6;  Rom.  8  :  2), 
sanctifies  (Rom.  15:16;  i  Cor.  6  :  11),  raises  the  dead  (Rom. 
8  :  11). 

4.  Christian  consciousness  corroborates  the  testimony  of 
Scripture.  The  change  experienced  in  regeneration,  the  suc- 
cor and  aid  afforded  for  sanctification  would  have  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  recuperative  powers  of  man's  own  will,  if  the 
Bible  had  not  authorized  us  to  look  for  such  blessings  from 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  having  this  authorization,  we  joyously 
acknowledge  the  benefits  to  be  divine. 

II.    PERSONALITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

This  is  denied  by  all  who  deny  the  divinity  of  our  Lord. 
It  is  the  latest  and  least  explicit  revelation  concerning  the 
Godhead,  whether  we  consult  the  representations  of  the  Bible, 
or  the  intimations  of  Christian  experience. 

I .  Earlier  Biblical  Usage. 

Under  the  Old  Dispensation  the  Spirit  of  God  was  under- 

Q 


l83  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT 

stood  to  be  what  the  name  Spirit,  or  breath,  implies,  an 
august  and  powerful  influence  which  emanates  from  God. 
And  this  idea  seems  to  have  prevailed  until  the  latter  part  of 
our  Saviour's  ministry.  For  example  in  the  angel's  annun- 
ciation to  Mary  (Luke  1:35)  the  name  "  Holy  Ghost  "  must 
be  interpreted  by  the  parallel  title,  "the  power  of  the  High- 
est." This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  statement 
which  precedes,  that  Jesus  should  be  "  called  the  Son  of  the 
Highest,"  and  by  that  which  follows,  that  he  should  be  "called 
the  Son  of  God"  ;  for  the  New  Testament  nowhere  intimates, 
what  any  other  interpretation  would  require,  that  Jesus  was 
begotten  by  the  Third  instead  of  the  First  Person  in  the 
Trinity.  Indeed,  the  sole  reason  for  regarding  the  Father  as 
a  person  in  a  Trinity  is  that  Christ  is  his  Son.  Similarly,  our 
Lord's  denunciation  of  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit 
(Matt.  12:31,  32),  if  applicable  only  to  a  Third  Person  in  a 
Trinity,  would  have  been  without  meaning  to  those  who 
heard  it ;  but  when  understood  as  referring  to  an  obstinate 
defiance  of  that  power  or  influence  from  God  which  mani- 
festly wrought  in  Christ,  the  rebuke  became  fearfully  intel- 
ligible. 

2.  Later  Biblical  Usage. 

The  Master's  assurance  that  another  Comforter  would 
take  his  place  was  the  first  explicit  revelation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  personality.  The  evidence  in  fuller  detail  is  as 
follows  : 

{a)  The  title  Paraclete,  or  Comforter,  is  expressly  personal. 

(b)  As  one  who  was  to  fill  the  place  of  the  personal  Jesus, 
the  Holy  Spirit  must  be  a  person  (John  14  :  16,  17  ;   15:  26). 

{c)  Although  Uvtutia  is  neuter,  the  masculine  pronoun 
ixeivoc  is  used  with  it  in  the  promise  of  John  16  :  13,  14. 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  183 

(a)  Christ  and  the  apostles  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
personal  faculties  of  mind,  for  he  teaches  (John  14  :  26  ;  16  : 
13  ;  Acts  20  :  23  ;  i  Cor.  2  :  10-13  ;  i  John  5  :  6) ;  of  will, 
since  he  exercises  authority  (Acts  8  :  29 ;  10  :  20  ;  16  :  6,  7  ; 
I  Cor.  12  :  11);  of  feeling,  because  he  can  be  grieved  (Eph. 
4  :  30). 

(e)  The  Spirit's  subordination  in  office  to  the  Father 
and  to  the  Son  implies  personality.  He  is  sent  by  the  Son 
from  the  Father  (John  i  5  :  26) ;  he  speaks  only  what  is  given 
him  to  speak  (John  16  :  13-1  5) ;  he  intercedes  for  the  saints 
according  to  the  will  of  God  (Rom.  8  :  27). 

(/)  The  Old  Testament  foreshadows  this  doctrine.  See 
especially  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Joel. 

(£■)  Christ  promised  that  his  disciples  should  know  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  dwelling  in  them  (John  14  :  17);  Christian 
experience,  therefore,  finds  in  "  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  "  a 
corroboration  of  his  personality.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot 
distinguish  two  persons  in  our  breast ;  still  less  can  we  tell 
apart  one  and  another  Person  of  the  Trinity.  Solely  by  the 
activity  of  our  own  faculties  can  we  know  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  dwelling  in  us. 

And  these  must  be  unquestionably  normal  activities. 
Fanaticism  has  rioted  on  the  error  that  lively  impressions  are 
personal  communications  from  God.  Too  often  a  strong  im- 
pulse to  some  course  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  because 
no  reason  except  the  strength  of  the  impulse  can  be  found 
for  taking  such  a  course. 

It  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  that,  if  we  knew  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  apart  from  ourselves,  and  distinguished  his  activity 
from  our  own,  we  would  not  truly  know  him  at  all ;  for  we 
would  miss  what  we  most  need,  namely,  that  he  should  reveal 
himself  in  animating  and  guiding  our  powers. 


l84  OFFICES  OF   THE   HOLY  SPIRIT 

§  42.   Offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  doctrine,  more  perhaps  than  any  other  of  soteriology, 
lacks  thorough  investigation.  Opinion  among  Protestants 
ranges  all  the  way  from  the  Friends'  mystical  belief  in  "  the 
inner  light  "  to  the  frigid  theory  of  some  Disciples  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  comes  to  men  through  the  inspired  word  alone, 
exactly  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  is  carried  by  his  words ;  and 
from  the  extreme  high  church  doctrine  of  a  divinely  guided 
episcopate  to  the  disorganizing  fancy  of  "  the  presidency  of 
the  Spirit,"  as  taught  by  Plymouth  Brethren. 

I.    THE    DISPENSATION    OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

All  agree  that  the  present  is  in  some  important  sense  the 
Dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  view  is  justified  by 
the  prophecy  of  John  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  would  baptize 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire  (Matt.  3  :  11);  by  the  promise 
of  Jesus  that,  when  he  had  gone  away,  he  would  send  the 
Comforter  (John  16  :  7);  by  the  repetition  of  this  promise 
after  his  resurrection  (Luke  24  :  49,  cf.  Acts  i  :  4,  5,  8),  and 
by  the  abundant  and  varied  gifts  of  the  Spirit  to  the  apos- 
tolic church  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  onward. 

Whatever  the  offices  are  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives 
pre-eminence  to  the  New  Dispensation  over  the  Old,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  those  offices  were  not  withheld  from  Israel  when 
they  might  as  well  have  been  bestowed.  Our  Lord  alone  has 
intimated  a  reason  why  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
so  much  more  copious  after  than  before  his  own  mission  : 
"  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you ; 
but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you  "  (John  16:7). 
While  Christ  was  yet  upon  earth  he  could  not  send  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  first,  because  he  was  still  himself  a  servant,  and  as 
such   could   not  fitly  send  the  Third  Person  in  the  Godhead 


OFFICES  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  185 

(John  7  :  39  ;  Acts  2  :  33) ;  secondly,  because  the  redemp- 
tive work,  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  testify  and  which 
it  was  thus  to  crown,  had  not  yet  been  completed, 

II.  GENERAL    OFFICE. 

All  effects  upon  character  are  made  through  the  mediation 
of  ideas,  bad  or  good.  Especially  when  faith  is  the  condi- 
tion of  benefits,  must  we  have  an  idea  of  the  object  of  faith. 
"  Salvation  (is)  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of 
the  truth  "  (2  Thess.  2:13;  Gal.  3  :  2).     Hence — 

To  minister  the  truth,  that  is,  to  reveal  and  apply  the 
truth,  is  the  all-inclusive  function  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
special  form  and  the  extent  of  the  ministration  depend  upon 
the  nature  and  the  range  of  applicability  in  the  truth  to  be 
administered. 

III.  OFFICES    UNDER    THE    OLD    COVENANT. 

I.  The  people  of  God  were  in  a  state  of  pupilage  and 
habitually  instructed  by  symbols.  The  effect  of  such  instruc- 
tion was  two-fold. 

{a)  The  immediate  result  was  the  limitation  of  a  highly 
ritualistic  religion  to  a  ritually  prepared  people.  The  priestly 
race  of  Israel  alone  could  participate  in  the  Levitical  rites. 
Mosaism  in  large  part  shut  off  the  Gentiles  from  the  truth, 
and  so  far  from  the  ministry  of  the  Spirit. 

{b)  The  remoter  consequence  was  that,  for  many  of  the 
chosen  people  themselves,  the  symbol  displaced  the  truth  it 
symbolized.  The  inherent  weakness  of  a  religion  embodied 
in  object  lessons  is  that  the  better  adapted  they  are  to  set 
forth  truth,  the  worse  adapted  they  are  to  keep  it  before  the 
mind ;  the  more  the  symbols  show,  the  more  they  may  hide. 
As  there  is  less  to  dread  in  a  simple  cross  than  in  the  too 


l86  OFFICES  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT 

significant  crucifix,  so  the  very  expressiveness  of  the  ancient 
ceremonial  necessitated  an  abandonment  of  it. 

(c)  The  trend  of  the  priesthood  which  administers  a  ritual 
is  not  toward  simplicity,  but  toward  an  elaboration  which 
magnifies  the  priestly  function,  limits  that  of  the  people, 
and,  alike  for  people  and  priest,  requires  of  the  mind  the 
least  possible  share  in  religious  observances.  Quite  the  re- 
verse is  the  tendency  of — 

2.  T/ie  prophetic  office.  This  deals  in  ideas,  hence  is  sug- 
gestive, progressive,  and  radical.  The  prophet  emphasized 
the  reality,  sometimes  not  hesitating  to  disparage  the  form 
(Ps.  50  :  8-14  ;  51  :  16,  17  ;  Joel  2:13;  Micah  6  :  6-8  ;  cf. 
Deut.  10  :  12).  He  turned  the  thoughts  of  the  people  toward 
the  future,  and  prepared  for  a  complete  revelation  in  the 
Messiah. 

3.  But,  whether  by  symbols  or  by  prophecy,  the  Holy 
Spirit  used  the  truth  for  the  renewal  of  men  s  hearts  under 
the  Ancient  Dispensation.  In  this  way  alone,  then  as  now, 
could  any  become  the  children  of  God  (Rom.  8  :  7,  cf.  John 
3  :  3-10  with  Ps.  51  :  10  and  Ezek.  11  :  19,  20 ;  36  :  26,  27). 

IV.    OFFICES    UNDER    THE    NEW    COVENANT. 

The  work  of  our  Lord  by  introducing  the  antitype  closed 
the  period  of  types  and  restrictive  ordinances.  The  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus,  while  first  declared  to  the  Jews,  was  of  univer- 
sal applicability.  The  graces  of  the  Spirit  were  bestowed 
upon  all  believers  ;  and,  to  mark  this  fact,  the  miraculous 
charisms  were  for  a  time  conferred  upon  all  (Acts  2  :  1-4,  17, 
18  ;  10  :  47  ;  i  Cor.  12  :  7-1 1). 

More  specifically,  the  oflfices  of  the  Holy  Spirit  under  this 
Dispensation  are — 

I .    To  prove  the  claims  of  Jesus.     The  miraculous  gifts  of 


OFFICES  OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT  187 

Pentecost  and  of  the  immediately  following  years,  as  well  as 
more  distinctively  spiritual  influences,  were  the  Father's  testi- 
mony to  the  resurrection  and  divinity  of  his  Son. 

This  was  the  only  practicable  evidence.  No  good  purpose 
would  have  been  served,  had  the  Lord  shown  himself  to  the 
world  after  his  resurrection.  If  some  had  been  convinced, 
others  would  have  caviled  ;  and  the  direct  evidence  to  future 
generations  would  be  just  what  it  is,  that  of  his  disciples. 
But  in  the  lives  of  spiritual  men  the  Holy  Spirit  is  affording 
the  fittest  and  the  most  persuasive  testimony  that  the  Lord  is 
risen  indeed. 

2.  The  apostles  were  enabled  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  recall 
the  teacJiing  (John  14  :  26),  and  interpret  the  mission  (Acts 
I  :  8  ;  I  Cor.  2  14,  10)  of  Jesus  to  converts  of  the  new  faith 
and  to  the  world. 

A  permanent  office  of  authoritative  teaching  has  been 
only  less  important  to  later  generations  than  to  that  of  the 
apostles.  Spiritual  men  have  been  enabled  in  every  age  to 
apprehend  and  to  teach  the  substance  of  Christian  truth. 

3.  The  Holy  Spirit  used  and  still  uses  the  truth  thus 
taught  for  the  conviction  of  sinners,  the  renewing,  enlighten- 
ing, sanctifying,  and  assuring  of  believers. 

4.  Naturally  allied  by  participation  in  a  new  faith,  new  life, 
and  new  aims,  converts  were  organised  into  the  church  by 
the  authority  and  under  the  direction  of  the  Spirit  (i  Cor. 
12  :  28,  cf.  Rom.  12  :  6-Z  ;  Eph.  4:11,12). 

5.  The  church  became  "an  habitation  of  God  through  the 
Spirit"  (Eph.  2  :  22,  cf.  Matt.  18  :  20).  Beyond  the  mystery 
of  the  Spirit's  relation  to  the  individual  (John  3  :  8),  it  is  not 
necessary  to  believe  that  he  holds  a  mystic  relation  to  the 
church  as  an  organic  whole.  Eph.  5  :  32,  "This  mystery  is 
great ;  but  I  am  speaking  of  Christ  and  of  the  church,"  does 


l88  THE  TRINITY 

not  mean  that  the  relation  of  Christ  and  the  church  is  ob- 
scure, but  that  marriage  is  a  mystic  symbol  of  that  relation. 

But  quite  apart  from  a  questionable  mystery  in  the  rela- 
tion, we  can  see  that  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  use  of  the  power- 
ful agency  of  the  social  faculties  for  the  mutual  edification 
of  believers  through  the  truth  (i  Cor.  12  :  13  f. ;  14  :  12,  26), 
and  for  the  extension  of  the  same  privileges  by  the  same 
means  to  all  mankind  (i  Cor.  14  :  24,  25,  cf.  Matt.  28  ;  19, 
20). 

6.  The  resurrection  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  those  in  whom  he 
dwells  (Rom.  8:11),  is  an  essentially  ethical  phase  of  the 
future  life  (Phil.  3  :  8-11),  and  the  most  satisfactory.  Thus, 
in  making  us  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the 
saints  in  light,  it  is  also  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
"the  earnest  of  our  inheritance"  (Eph.  i  :  14 ;  2  Cor.  i  :  22  ; 
5:5). 

§  43.  The  Trinity, 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  expressly  enunciated  by 
the  Scriptures,  but  the  data  on  which  it  rests  are  afforded  in 
the  biblical  account  of  the  divine  offices  in  redemption.  This 
economic  aspect  of  the  Trinity  being  early  recognized,  as  we 
know  from  the  Ebionite  protests  against  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord,  the  conviction  began  to  form  in  many  minds  that  the 
historical  distinctions  expressed  by  the  titles  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit,  correspond  to  eternal  distinctions  in  the  Godhead.  In 
order  to  end  the  disputes  on  this  subject,  the  Council  of 
Nicea  in  the  year  325  defined  the  doctrine  of  the  Son,  and  in 
381  the  Council  of  Constantinople  added  to  the  Nicene  creed 
the  article  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  aims  simply  to  present  in  one 
view  the  facts  revealed  in  the  plan  of  grace  concerning  the 


The;  trinity  189 

mode  cf  the  divine  existence.     In  this  necessary  effort   of 
speculative  Christian  thought  the  conclusion  reached  is — 

I.  DEFINITION. 

In  the  one  personal  God  there  are  three  personal  distinc- 
tions, or  quasi  persons.  "Person"  cannot  be  used  of  the 
Godhead  and  of  the  three  hypostases  in  the  Godhead  in  the 
same  sense ;  for  it  would  be  self-contradictory  to  say  even  of 
God  that,  without  change  of  meaning  in  the  word,  three  per- 
sons constitute  one  person.  When  used  of  the  Deity  as  a 
whole,  the  word  "  person "  implies  self-consciousness,  and 
substance  distinct  from  that  of  other  persons  ;  while,  as  ap- 
plied to  the  three  hypostases  in  the  Deity,  it  means  self-con- 
sciousness, with  numerical  identity  of  substance. 

The  ordinary  formula  for  this  doctrine,  "  three  persons  in 
one  God,"  avoids  using  a  term  in  two  senses,  but  at  the  cost 
of  ascribing  to  God  only  tripersonality  ;  whereas,  the  doctrine 
which  pervades  the  elder  Scriptures,  and  is  never  in  the  least 
disguised  in  the  new,  is  that  God  is  one  person,  in  the  ordi- 
nary meaning  of  the  term.  The  unipersonality  of  the  God- 
head then  is  the  expressly  taught  doctrine  of  the  Bible ; 
while  the  doctrine  of  tripersonality  is  a  valid,  but  purely 
human  induction  from  facts  given  in  the  Bible.  It  is  a  meta- 
physic,  and  this  metaphysic  is  peculiarly  Christian  ;  but  it  is 
the  Christianity  of  the  church,  and  not  of  the  Bible  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  justify  insistence  that  the  theory  of  Tri-unity  was 
fully  developed  in  the  mind  of  any  New  Testament  writer. 

II.  EVIDENCE    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

I.  Evidence  from  the  New  Testament. 

Besides  the  texts  which  have  already  been  cited  to  prove 
the  unity  and  personality  of  God,  the  divinity  and  personality 


190  1*HE  TRINITV 

of  the  Word  and  the  Spirit,  certain  other  texts  associate  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  as  divine,  yet  distinguish  them  as  per- 
sons.    They  are  so  associated  and  distinguished — 

(a)  By  their  several  parts  in  the  scheme  of  redemption. 
According  to  i  Peter  i  :  2  the  Father  elects,  the  Son  sprinkles 
with  blood,  the  Spirit  sanctifies  (cf.  ver,  17-22); 

(d)  By  their  relations  to  the  individual  believer.  He  has 
access  through  Christ,  in  one  Spirit,  unto  the  Father  (Eph. 
2:18).  He  is  exhorted,  by  praying  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
keep  himself  in  the  love  of  God,  looking  for  the  mercy  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Jude  20,  21); 

(f)  By  their  offices  to  the  church.  The  church  is  built 
together  in  Christ  Jesus  for  an  habitation  of  God  in  the 
Spirit  (Eph.  2  :  20-22).  It  constitutes  one  body  with  one 
Spirit,  even  as  it  has  one  Lord,  one  God  and  Father  of  all 
(Eph.  4  :  4-6).  Its  varied  gifts  are  from  the  same  Spirit  ; 
its  different  services  are  under  one  Lord ;  its  diversities  of 
workings  are  by  the  same  God,  who  worketh  all  in  all  (i  Cor. 
12  :4-6); 

(d)  By  the  promise  of  Christ  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  from 
the  Father  (John  i  5  :  26,  cf.  14  :  26;  Luke  24  :  49  ;  Acts  i  : 

4;  2  :  33); 

(e)  By  the  formula  of  baptism,  according  to  which  the  be- 
liever assumes  obligations  alike  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  (Matt.  28  :  19); 

(/)  By  the  apostolic  benediction  (2  Cor.  13  :  14),  which 
invokes  blessings  from  each  person  of  the  Trinity  as  from 
God ; 

(g)  By  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  at  which  the  distinctions  in 
the  Godhead  were  revealed  to  the  senses.  The  Spirit  was 
seen  descending  like  a  dove,  while  the  voice  of  God  was 
heard  acknowledging  Jesus  as  his  Son  (Luke  3  :  22). 


THE  TRINITY  I9I 

2.  Evidence  from  the  Old  Testament. 

Strict  monotheism  was  so  thoroughly  adopted  by  the  Jews 
during  the  Babylonian  captivity  as  to  prove  a  serious  obstacle 
to  the  spread  of  Christianity  among  them.  And  yet,  read  in 
the  light  of  Christianity,  the  Old  Testament  not  only  pre- 
intimated  the  divinity  and  personality  of  the  Word  and  the 
Spirit,  but  is  thought  by  some  to  have  associated  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the 
trinitarian  texts  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  more  important  passages  which  are  believed  to  have 
this  character  are  those  in  which  the  plural  Elohim  is  used  as 
the  name  of  God,  with  a  corresponding  plural  pronoun  in  the 
account  of  the  creation  of  man  (Gen.  i  :  26),  the  three-fold 
blessings  in  Num.  6  :  24-26,  the  Tersanctus  of  Isa.  6  :  3, 
and  even  the  prophetic  saying  in  Isa.  61  :  i,  as  interpreted  by 
our  Lord  himself  in  Luke  4  :  16-21.  A  trinitarian  meaning 
may  possibly  be  latent  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  that 
fact  not  be  made  altogether  patent  by  quotations  in  the  New, 

3.  Psychological  Evidence. 

To  many  trinitarians  human  consciousness  itself,  bold  as 
the  suggestion  is,  seems  to  afford  evidence  that  the  God- 
head is  tripersonal.  While  the  doctrine  could  not  be  erected 
upon  so  narrow  a  basis,  it  is  not  impossible  that  it  may  de- 
rive some  real  support  from  a  class  of  facts  which  are  thought 
by  some  to  overthrow  it  altogether.    Accordingly  it  is  urged — 

A.  Self-consciousness  is  possible  only  through  distinction 
of  self  from  not-self.  Hence  from  eternity  the  self-con- 
sciousness of  God  required  a  self,  to  wit,  the  Father ;  a  not- 
self  who  should  still  be  in  substance  one  with  the  Father, 
namely,  the  Son ;  and  a  medium  of  communication  between 
these  two,  that  is,  the  Spirit.     But — 


192  THE  TRINITY 

(a)  While  the  argument  is  not  without  plausibility  so  far 
as  it  provides  for  duality,  yet,  when  it  requires  a  third  person 
as  a  means  of  communication  between  the  first  two,  the 
question  arises  why  a  fourth  is  not  equally  needed  to  mediate 
between  three  persons,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum. 

(p)  Again,  if  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  identical  in  sub- 
stance, the  need  of  any  means  of  communication  can  hardly 
be  demonstrated  ;  nor,  without  raising  a  presumption  against 
the  spirituality  of  the  Godhead,  is  it  easy  to  see  how  a  third 
hypostasis  could  better  serve  in  such  a  way. 

B.  God  is  essentially  love.  From  eternity  he  must  have 
had  an  object  to  love  not  inferior  to  himself,  yet  neither  per- 
sonally identical  with  nor  separate  from  himself.  This  ob- 
ject of  love  the  Father  found  in  the  Son.  But  their  com- 
mon love  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  proceeds  from  them  both, 
was  needed,  in  order  to  save  their  own  personalities  from 
being  lost  through  the  energy  of  a  mutual  self-surrender. 

This  argument  has  substantially  the  same  merits,  and  is 
open  to  much  the  same  exceptions  as  the  former.  Duality 
would  obviously  provide  eternal  employment  for  love  ;  but 
that  the  divine  love  was  either  kept  from  doing  the  Godhead 
a  harm,  or,  as  others  prefer  to  put  the  argument,  was  inten- 
sified, by  the  regard  of  two  divine  persons  for  their  common 
offspring,  provokes  dissent  by  its  assumption  of  insight  into 
the  profoundest  mystery  of  the  Divine  nature. 

III.    RELATIONS    WITHIN    THE    TRINITY. 

The  humanitarian  and  the  subordinationist  theories  pre- 
clude inter-trinitarian  relations  by  denying  the  proper  divinity 
of  our  Lord.  Doctrines  which  acknowledge  his  deity,  but 
offer  different  accounts  of  personal  relations  within  the  God- 
head are  the  following : 


fHE  TRINITY  193 

1,  According  to  Sabellins  (about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century)  God  before  the  creation  rested  in  himself  and  was 
silent.  In  the  work  of  creation  he  uttered  himself  and  be- 
came the  Word.  But  as  Word  the  total  Godhead  presented 
himself  in  three  consecutive  aspects  :  during  the  Dispensa- 
tion of  Law  he  appeared  as  Father ;  withdrawing  this  rela- 
tion, he  reappears  in  the  incarnation  as  Son  ;  after  the  ascen- 
sion he  comes  a  third  time  as  Holy  Spirit,  and,  when  sancti- 
fication  of  the  church  is  complete,  he  will  return  to  absolute 
unity  forever. 

Sabellianism  was  distinguished  from  the  earlier  patripas- 
sianism  by  recognizing  a  distinct  manifestation  of  God  as 
Holy  Spirit.  It  has  been  variously  modified  by  recent 
writers,  but  its  essence  in  all  ages  is  the  denial  of  an  imma- 
nent trinity,  especially  of  eternal  distinctions  before  the  in- 
carnation, while  admitting  the  form  or  mode  of  successive  per- 
sonal distinctions  during  the  course  of  God's  relations  to  men. 

In  reviewing  the  evidence  as  to  Sabellianism — 

{a)  We  admit  that  the  title  Father  is  used  in  both  Testa- 
ments of  the  Deity  as  such  ;  and  that  some  passages  which 
distinguish  between  the  Father  and  Jesus  Christ  refer  to  the 
historical  Christ,  and  not  to  the  pre-existent  Logos.  For  ex- 
ample, in  the  promise  to  send  the  Comforter,  it  is  the  God- 
man,  and  not  the  Logos  that  speaks  (John  1 5  :  26). 

{b)  Nevertheless,  there  are  numerous  texts  in  which  the 
pre-incarnate  Logos  is  distinguished  from  the  Father.  Here 
belong  the  passages  in  which  Christ  speaks  of  himself  as 
coming  into  this  world  from  another  sphere  (John  7  :  29  ;  8  : 
42;  10  :  36  ;  16  :  28);  in  which  the  Epistles  refer  to  his 
mission  (Rom.  8  :  3  ;  i  Tim.  1:15;  Heb.  i  :  6  ;  i  John  4  : 
3,  9,  10);  and  passages  that  tell  of  his  state  before  the  incar- 
nation (John  17:5;  2  Cor.  8:9;  Phil.  2  :  6). 


194  THE  TRINITY 

(c)  Several  passages  distinguish  the  Father,  Word,  and 
Spirit,  not  as  successive  modes  in  the  existence  of  one  divine 
person,  but  as  three  contemporaneous  persons  in  one  God. 
These  passages  have  already  been  cited  as  evidence  for  the 
Trinity. 

(d)  How  utterly  modalism  fails  to  interpret  the  facts  of 
the  Christian  economy  would  appear  on  an  attempt  to  trans- 
late in  terms  of  modalism  Paul's  swift  but  comprehensive 
sketch  of  the  three  states  of  Christ  before,  during,  and  after 
his  earthly  life  (Phil.  2  :  6-10). 

2.  T/ie  Nicenc,  or  usual  orthodox  theory,  is  that  godhead 
resides  in  the  Father,  that  the  Father  eternally  generates  the 
Son  from  his  own  substance  by  a  process  immanent  in  his 
nature,  not  dependent  on  his  will,  and  that  by  another  imma- 
nent process  the  Holy  Spirit  eternally  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  Since  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
are  of  numerically  identical  substance,  they  are  necessarily 
co-equal,  and  hypostatic  distinctions  do  not  involve  tritheism. 
Accordingly,  the  so-called  Athanasian  creed  tersely  insists 
that  "  we  worship  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  neither  confounding 
the  persons  nor  dividing  the  substance."  As  to  this  vener- 
able and  generally  accepted  view  we  notice  : 

{a)  The  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  and  the  eternal  pro- 
cession of  the  Spirit  are  not  facts  of  Scripture,  but  interpre- 
tations of  scriptural  facts  by  the  Neo-platonic  theory  of 
emanation. 

The  Scriptures  afford  no  proof  that  the  Logos  was  a  de- 
rived being.  The  title  Son  of  God  was  assigned  by  the  angel 
of  the  annunciation  on  the  ground  that  God  was  the  Father 
of  the  historical  person,  Jesus.  The  title  once  fixed  was 
naturally  carried  back  to  the  pre-incarnate  Word,  just  as  the 
name  Christ  Jesus  was  and  is  still  carried  back,  although 


THK  TRINITY  I95 

neither  part  of  it  is  strictly  applicable  (Phil.  2  :  5),  In  Col. 
I  :  15  he  is  called  "the  first-born  of  every  creature,"  in  ver. 
18  "the  first-born  from  the  dead,"  and  in  both  cases  by  way 
of  "pre-eminence"  (ver.  18,  cf.  Ps.  89  :  27).  "First-born" 
certainly  does  not  mean  eternally  begotten,  and  would  not  be 
so  understood  except  under  pressure  of  a  theological  exigency. 
If  anything  like  a  literal  meaning  is  here  insisted  upon,  it 
must  be  Arian,  rather  than  orthodox. 

In  John  15  :  26  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  proceed  from  the 
Father  ;  but  this  is  so  distinctly  after  the  Old  Testament  con- 
ception of  him  as  breath  or  influence  from  God,  as  rather  to 
mark  the  use  of  familiar  though  impersonal  forms  of  thought 
and  speech  (8  ixnopouerac),  than  to  reveal  an  ontological  rela- 
tion of  Persons  (John  7  :  39). 

(d)  The  ideas  of  eternal  generation  and  eternal  procession 
are  not  only  extra-scriptural,  but  are  incompatible  with  that 
equality  between  persons  of  the  Godhead  which  the  doctrine 
of  Nicea  itself  insists  upon.  They  are  ideas  of  subordination, 
because  they  represent  the  very  existence  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Spirit  as  dependent  upon  a  process. 

(c)  This  theory  undermines  the  personality  of  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit ;  since,  in  representing  them  as  eternally  becoming, 
it  denies  their  real  being. 

The  metaphysical  element  in  the  Nicene  definition  is  thus 
seen  to  be  a  futile  and  self-contradictory  effort  to  provide  a 
philosophical  explanation  of  matters  necessarily  above  human 
understanding.  Discarding,  then,  all  ontological  speculation, 
and  consulting  only  the  facts  of  Scripture,  it  is  warrantable 
for  us  to  hold  and  teach  that — 

3.  The  titles  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  afforded  by  eco- 
nomic offices  ;  the  economic  offices  pertain  to  eternal  distinc- 
tions of  person  ;  the  offices  are  so  appropriate  to  the  persons, 


196  THE  OFFICES  OF  CHRIST 

that  they  are  not  to  be  thought  of  as  interchangeable.  Essen- 
tial equality  with  official  inequality  may  be  unhesitatingly  af- 
firmed ;  but  as  to  ontological  relations  of  the  three  persons  in 
one  God,  the  Scriptures  reveal  little,  and  speculation  is  worse 
than  useless. 

§  44.  The  Offices  of  Christ. 

1.  The  Offices. 

Since  the  Reformation  these  have  been  distinguished  as 
prophecy,  priesthood,  and  kingship.  As  prophet,  Christ  im- 
parts the  truth,  of  which  he  was,  indeed,  the  embodiment. 
As  priest,  he  mediates  between  God  and  man,  effecting  a 
mutual  reconciliation  and  establishing  a  covenant  by  offering 
himself  in  sacrifice.  As  king,  he  reigns  in  the  hearts  and 
orders  the  lives  of  his  people,  presides  as  head  of  the  church, 
and  will  finally  subdue  all  things  unto  himself. 

2.  Interdependetice  of  Offices. 

Each  of  these  offices  is  emphasized  by  some  important 
school  of  Christian  thought  at  the  expense  of  the  other 
offices.  Rationalism  insists  on  the  prophetic  office,  evangeli- 
cal belief  rests  upon  the  priestly,  and  high-churchism  knows 
no  salvation  outside  of  the  organized  kingdom  of  our  Lord, 
One-sidedness  and  misconception  of  the  Redeemer's  offices 
can  be  avoided  only  by  recognizing  their  interdependence. 
But  this  relation,  though  somewhat  discussed  between  Lu- 
therans and  Reformed,  has  never  been  thoroughly  studied. 
Little,  however,  is  risked,  if  proper  scope  is  given  to  the 
meaning  of  terms,  in  holding — 

{a)  As  to  the  prophetic  and  priestly  offices,  that  Christ 
teaches  by  saving,  and  saves  by  teaching ; 

{b)  As  to  the  prophetic  and  kingly,  that  he  teaches  by  rul- 
ing, and  rules  by  teaching ; 


THE  ATONEMENT  I97 

{c)  As  to  his  priesthood  and  kingship,  that  he  saves  by 
ruling,  and  rules  by  saving. 

3.  Doctrines  Classified  by  Offices. 

With  the  fact  of  interdependence  in  view,  we  cannot  so 
readily  restrict  to  one  or  another  office  of  Christ  those  acts 
of  divine  grace  which  form  the  subject  of  Christian  doctrine. 
And  yet  the  familiar  distinction  is  not  to  be  disregarded.  We 
may  say  that  the  atonement  included  the  prophetic  and  priestly 
functions,  and  aimed  at  the  fulfillment  of  the  kingly ;  that  in- 
tercession is  an  office  of  royal  priesthood  ;  that  election  and 
justification  in  Christ  depend  on  his  priesthood ;  that  calling, 
regeneration,  sanctification,  perseverance,  and  the  entire  series 
of  eschatological  events  pertain  more  directly  to  the  kingship 
which  Christ  exercises  in  sending  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in 
bringing  on  the  final  consummation. 

§  45.  The  Atonement. 

The  atonement  is  the  provision  made  by  Christ  to  deliver 
men  from  sin  and  its  penalties.  It  is  the  task  of  theology  to 
determine  in  what  the  provision  consists,  and  to  what  its  effi- 
cacy is  due. 

There  is  a  marked  tendency  to  accept  the  atonement  as  a 
fact  while  discarding  all  theories  concerning  it.  But  belief  in 
the  fact  involves  some  recognition  of  its  nature,  and  is  so  far 
a  theory  or  view  of  the  atonement.  On  the  other  hand,  doubt 
of  its  meaning  tends  to  shadow  its  reality. 

It  is  not  then  untimely  to  review  the  theories  which  have 
been  piously  wrought,  to  classify  the  unmistakable  data  of 
Scripture,  and  to  attempt  an  explanation  of  these  data  in  the 
light  of  former  investigations.  Our  inquiry  will  therefore  be 
threefold :  historical,  biblical,  and  theoretical, 


198  THE  ATONEMENT 

Part  First. — Historical  Survey. 

I.  THE    patristic    DOCTRINE. 

The  Apostolic  Fathers  intimated  without  formulating  their 
view  of  the  atonement ;  they  taught  that  Christ  gave  himself 
for  our  sins.  Their  successors  until  the  beginning  of  the 
twelfth  century  held  every  variety  of  opinion,  and  on  this 
subject  variety  was  tolerated.  The  most  popular  view  was 
that  the  atonement  was  a  victory  over  Satan. 

Origen  (died  254)  converted  this  idea  into  the  theory  of  a 
ransom  paid  to  Satan.  On  the  one  hand,  men  had  surren- 
dered to  Satan,  and  could  not  be  delivered  from  captivity 
without  his  consent  ;  on  the  other  hand,  Satan  was  deluded 
into  accepting  Christ  as  a  ransom.  The  humanity  of  Christ 
was  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  bait,  and  his  divinity  as  the 
hook  by  which  Satan  was  caught.  Fearing  the  effect  on  his 
captives  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus,  and  seeing  the 
divine  glory  of  our  Lord  through  the  veil  of  his  flesh  so  ob- 
scurely as  to  be  deceived — by  divine  intention  deceived — 
Satan  undertook  to  rid  himself  of  the  danger  by  putting 
Christ  to  death.  But  to  cause  the  crucifixion  was  to  accept 
the  ransom  ;  the  captives  were  released,  and  their  Deliverer 
likewise  escaped. 

Although  in  harmony  with  the  ancient  usages  of  war,  such 
a  theory  could  be  regarded  as  scriptural  only  because  con- 
troversy had  not  yet  secured  a  thorough  study  of  the  atone- 
ment. No  one  now  imagines  that  Satan  has  rights  over 
man  ;  that  his  supposed  rights  would  be  conserved  by  cheat- 
ing him  ;  or  that  God  would  practise  a  strategic  deceit  upon 
the  Father  of  lies. 

II.  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION. 

The  patristic  theory  of  ransom  paid  to  Satan  was  confuted 


THE  ATONEMENT  I99 

at  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century  by  Anselm,  and  after- 
ward obtained  but  a  modified  support  from  Bernard  and 
Peter  Lombard.  Anselm  proposed  the  theory  still  called  by 
his  name,  the  theory  of  Satisfaction.  In  brief,  his  doctrine 
was  that  sin  was  a  debt  to  the  Divine  honor  ;  that  either  ven- 
geance or  satisfaction  must  be  exacted ;  that,  adequate  satis- 
faction being  impossible  from  a  being  so  inferior  to  God  as  man 
is,  the  Son  of  God  became  man,  and,  owing  no  debt  on  his 
own  account,  by  his  death  paid  our  debt,  receiving  as  the  fur- 
ther reward  of  his  merit,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins. 

In  the  way  of  affirmation,  modification,  or  dissent,  the 
theory  of  Anselm  has  determined  the  course  of  all  subsequent 
discussion.  Abelard  objected  that  the  wrath  of  man,  not  of 
God,  needed  propitiating,  so  that  the  atonement,  instead  of 
being  an  offering  to  justice,  was  a  winning  exhibition  of  love. 
Stoutly  denied  by  Bernard,  the  theory  of  Abelard  did  not 
then  found  an  enduring  school,  but  has  often  been  revived 
and  is  at  present  widely  influential.  More  acceptable  to  the 
Scholastics  were  the  rival  views  of  their  greatest  theologians, 
Thomas  Aquinas  and  Duns  Scotus.  Aquinas,  denying,  as 
against  Anselm,  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  kind  of  atone- 
ment provided,  and  emphasizing  the  idea  of  merit,  adapted 
the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  the  Romanist  system.  Christ, 
he  held,  is  Head  of  the  church,  and  his  merit,  both  in  keep- 
ing the  law  and  in  suffering  for  sin,  avails  for  his  body 
through  the  sacraments.  According  to  Scotus,  God  might 
sovereignly  forgive  without  any  reparation  for  sins.  The 
merit  of  the  sacrifice  depended  upon  the  divine  acceptance, 
not  the  divine  acceptance  upon  the  merit  of  the  sacrifice. 
Yet  the  more  gratitude  is  due  to  Christ  for  accepting  pain 
which  it  was  not  needful  that  he  should  bear. 

Without  deciding  the  question  at  issue  between  Anselm, 


200  THE  ATONEMENT 

Aquinas,  and  Scotus,  whether  the  atonement  was  necessary 
absolutely,  relatively,  or  not  at  all,  the  Roman  Church  teaches 
that  the  crucifixion  avails  to  delete  or  undo  all  sin,  original 
and  actual,  previous  to  baptism  ;  while  as  to  sins  after  bap- 
tism, it  enables  the  penitent  to  escape  eternity  of  penalty 
and  make  propitiation  for  himself  by  the  use  of  other  sacra- 
ments, and  through  the  endurance  of  purgatorial  fire. 

The  Reformation,  disregarding  the  notions  of  Anselm  as  to 
debt  and  honor,  accepted  the  single  fact  of  satisfaction  as  a 
basis  for  justification  by  faith — orthodox  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinists  differing  chiefly  with  respect  to  the  purposed  extent 
of  the  atonement. 

The  accepted  view  was  developed  by  the  Calvinist  Cocceius 
into  a  formal  scheme  of  covenants  known  as  the  Federal 
theory,  and  this  theory  has  been  insisted  upon  by  most  Pres- 
byterians of  the  elder  school  in  English-speaking  lands  as 
essential  to  orthodoxy.  It  claims  that  there  was  a  covenant 
of  works  between  God  and  Adam  before  the  fall,  and  a  corre- 
sponding covenant  of  grace  with  Christ  or  with  the  elect,  or 
a  covenant  of  redemption  with  Christ,  and  of  grace  with  the 
elect.  By  the  covenant  of  works  Adam  was  made  federal 
head  of  the  race.  This  relation  was  due,  not  to  the  fact  that 
Adam  was  father  of  the  race,  although  that  fact  was  a  condi- 
tion of  federal  headship,  but  to  sovereign  appointment.  In 
Adam,  the  race  had  a  probation  under  the  most  favorable  cir- 
cumstances. With  his  fall,  the  covenant  of  works  ended,  but 
left  the  race  in  ruin.  The  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  not  its  moral 
turpitude  but  its  liability  to  punishment,  is  imputed  to  his 
posterity.  The  penalty  incurred  is  that  men  are  born  de- 
praved. 

By  the  covenant  of  grace  and  redemption  Christ  was  ap- 
pointed federal   head  of  the  elect,  and   undertook  in  their 


THE  ATONEMENT  20I 

behalf  to  obey  the  law  and  to  bear  the  penalty  of  their  sins, 
so  far  as  applicable  to  him,  the  sinless.  His  obedience,  both 
active  and  passive,  is  imputed  to  the  elect.  In  consequence 
of  this  imputation  the  Holy  Spirit  sovereignly  regenerates 
them  without  the  use  of  means ;  faith  springs  up  in  the  re- 
generate heart,  and  they  are  justified. 

(I)  The  doctrine  of  Satisfaction,  uncomplicated  with  a  doc- 
trine of  covenants,  is  an  incomplete  philosophy  of  atonement. 
That  Christ  was  offered  unto  God  in  satisfaction  for  sins  may 
be  accepted  as  a  fact,  but  not  as  a  fact  explained.  To  say 
with  Anselm  that  he  took  our  place  by  being  both  divine  and 
human  is  true  ;  but  how  is  it  true  .''  Failing  to  explain,  the 
Anselmic  theory  so  far  fails  to  vindicate,  the  actually  repre- 
sentative or  substitutionary  position  of  Christ,  and  in  conse- 
quence has  been  not  unfairly  charged  with  leaving  unsolved 
the  problem  how  either  justice  could  lay  on  the  Innocent  the 
curse  of  the  guilty,  or  how  it  could  benefit  them  if  their  curse 
were  thus  borne. 

(II)  The  Federalist  form  of  the  theory,  though  logically 
complete,  is  more  than  negatively  objectionable. 

1.  No  such  covenants  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

2.  Federalism  makes  the  economies  of  law  and  of  grace 
turn  on  sovereig^i  appointment,  instead  of  on  the  nature  and 
relations  of  God  and  men.  In  point  of  fact,  the  calamitous 
results  of  the  fall  are  incurred  by  our  race,  not  merely  be- 
cause God  decreed  that  it  should  be  so,  but  through  the  in- 
evitable transmission  of  moral  qualities  by  descent;  while 
blessings  issue  from  the  atonement,  not  in  consequence  of  a 
gracious  attachment  of  these  results  to  such  measures,  but, 
as  we  shall  see,  by  virtue  of  the  fundamentally  real  represen- 


202  THE  ATONEMENT 

tation  of  sinners  in  Christ,  and  through  an  organic,  not  a 
factitious,  means  of  communication  with  believers. 

These  objections  hold  against  the  Federalist  account  of  the 
atonement's  efficiency  both  Godward  and  manward. 

3.  Special  difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  its  alleged  manward 
effects. 

A.  Here  the  first  step  is  imputation  to  the  elect  of  the 
active  obedience  of  Christ.  Such  imputation  neither  has  * 
adequate  support  in  Scripture,  nor  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 
endurance  by  Christ  of  our  woes.  Participation  in  our  woes 
would  attend  his  acceptance  of  our  estate  ;  but  the  imputa- 
tion to  us  of  his  active  obedience  would  not  naturally  follow. 
If  one  does  harm  to  another  by  his  misdeeds,  it  is  not  a  mat- 
ter of  course  that  he  will  be  credited  with  the  other's  virtues. 

B.  The  second  step  is  the  sovereign  renewal  of  those  to 
whom  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  imputed.  The  atone- 
ment is  not  regarded  as  an  instrument  of  that  renewal ;  it  only 
impetrates  or  procures  it.  But  in  such  case,  the  atonement 
does  not  do  its  proper  work. 

{a)  The  atonement  is  intended  to  remove  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure. But  subjective  penalties,  incurred  by  the  sinner 
according  to  divinely  constituted  law,  are,  equally  with  any 
objective  inflictions,  a  mark  of  Divine  displeasure.  According 
to  the  Federalist  the  atonement  turns  away  the  stroke  of  ven- 
geance, but  leaves  the  inwrought  mischiefs  of  sin  to  be  repaired 
in  some  other  way — namely,  by  a  regeneration  in  which  the 
atonement  takes  no  part. 

{b)  Inwrought  penalties  cannot  be  set  aside  in  consequence 
of  a  merely  external  event,  like  the  fulfillment  for  us  of  a 
covenant ;  they  must  be  counteracted  by  the  remedial  efficacy 
of  an  inward  process.  The  atonement,  applied  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  must  be  appropriated  through  faith.     But,  according 


THE  ATONEMENT  203 

to  the  Federalist,  regeneration  is  not  by  appropriation  of  the 
atonement,  and  precedes  faith.  Yet,  until  moral  renewal  is 
effected,  conscience  itself  warns  us  that  the  atonement  is  only 
an  antecedent  provision  waiting  to  be  applied. 

4.  The  Federalist  theory,  by  referring  the  establishment 
and  the  operation  of  the  covenants  to  sheer  sovereignty,  while 
denying  all  participation  to  the  known,  the  organic,  the  suf- 
ficient relations  of  the  parties  involved,  incurs  the  grave 
charge  that,  not  being  according  to  nature  and  law,  the  atone- 
ment is  against  these,  and  must  consequently  be  both  injuri- 
ous and  wrong.  Although  chiefly  urged  by  the  unevangelical, 
this  objection  is  often  felt  by  evangelical  Christians.  It  is 
not  easy  to  see  how  its  force  can  be  escaped. 

III.  THE  MORAL  INFLUENCE  THEORY. 

On  the  grounds  which  Abelard  took  against  Anselm,  the 
Socinians  attacked  the  Reformers,  and  their  arguments  are 
urged  by  rationalistic  and  kindred  schools  in  our  day,  Jus- 
tice, it  is  affirmed,  demands  merely  that  men  should  abandon 
sin,  while  love  provides  a  Mediator  who  by  instruction  and 
example  brings  sinners  to  repentance  and  a  new  life. 

Recent  advocates  of  this  theory  among  both  Unitarians 
and  Trinitarians  find  a  deeper  significance  in  the  work  and 
sufferings  of  Christ.  According  to  Ritschl,  the  mission  of 
Christ  was  to  found  the  church,  which  would  perpetuate  a 
consciousness  of  the  love  of  God  to  men.  Maurice  regarded 
the  atonement  as  a  perfect  example  of  self-sacrifice  to  God, 
and  at  the  same  time  as  an  invitation  to  believe  that  God  had 
already  forgiven  human  sin.  According  to  Bushnell,  Christ 
bore  the  burden  of  our  sins  upon  his  heart,  and  thus  became 
a  true  sacrifice,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring 
us  to  God  by  the  persuasive  influence  of  mutual  sympathy. 


204  THE  ATONEMENT 

McLeod  Campbell  offered  a  mediating  view  :  Christ,  througk 
the  completeness  of  his  sympathy  with  both  God  and  man, 
makes  confession  unto  God  of  human  sins,  is  "  a  perfect 
Amen  in  humanity  to  the  judgment  of  God  on  the  sin  of 
man,"  thus  expiating  human  guilt ;  and  this  service  becomes 
available  for  any  who  accept  it  as  their  own  confession,  and 
are  won  by  it  to  righteousness. 

The  real  issue  with  the  theory  of  moral  influence  is  as  to 
the  necessity  of  an  expiation  for  sin.  If  a  sinner  becomes 
righteous,  justice,  it  is  claimed,  does  not  demand  his  punish- 
ment for  past  offenses ;  in  fact,  moral  penalties  become 
wholly  inapplicable,  and  no  other  penalties  would  be  worthy 
of  God.  The  theory  then  rests  on  ethical  rather  than  on 
scriptural  grounds.  In  reviewing  it  from  this  point  of  view, 
we  notice  : 

I .  The  initial  problem  is  not  whether  men  already  recon- 
ciled to  God  must  furnish  an  expiation  for  past  offenses,  but 
whether  without  any  expiation  men  can  be  reconciled.  It 
may  be  unhesitatingly  affirmed  that — 

{a)  Sinners  cannot  hold  themselves  to  the  service  of  God 
while  burdened  with  a  sense  of  sins  unforgiven  ; 

{F)  If  any  decree  of  conscience  be  practically  universal  and 
normal,  it  is  that  forgiveness  ought  not  even  to  be  accepted 
without  reparation  made ; 

{c)  No  present  fidelity  can  cancel  past  obligations,  for 
we  can  never  do  more  than  it  is  our  duty  to  do  (Luke 
17  :  10); 

{d)  The  clearing  vision  of  the  saintliest,  as  he  passes  hence, 
sees  full  well  the  sole  sufficiency  of  that  offering  for  sin  on 
which,  as  a  penitent,  he  first  laid  his  trust  (cf.  Gal.  2  :  21). 

This  law  of  our  nature  assures  us  of — - 


THE  ATONEMENT  ^05 

2.  A  correspojident  law  in  the  nature  of  the  Law-giver  (i 
John  3  :  20).  Made  in  his  image,  we  cannot  but  regard 
the  necessary  demand  of  conscience  as  the  counterpart  of  an 
imperative  requirement  of  God.  He  who  feels  the  normal 
impulse  to  offer  a  sacrifice  for  his  sins,  readily  admits  that 
the  divine  justice  yet  more  requires  this. 

But  some  deny  that  their  consciences  make  such  a  demand, 
and  they  justify  themselves  by  David's  protestation  :  "Thou 
desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it.  .  .  The  sacrifices 
of  God  are  a  broken  spirit"  (Ps.  51  :  16,  17).  But  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that — 

{a)  The  vagaries  of  individual  consciences  under  special 
influences  do  not  shake  the  authority  of  the  moral  judgment 
of  mankind ; 

[U]  The  law  of  Moses  did  not,  in  point  of  fact,  require 
sacrifices  but  punishment  for  grave  moral  offenses,  and  pub- 
lic punishment  was  visited  upon  David  in  this  very  case  (2 
Sam.  12  :  12);  so  that,  while  he  had  no  refuge  except  the 
mercy  of  God,  his  confident  appeal  cannot  be  quoted  for  the 
doctrine  that  justice  exacts  for  sin  no  other  satisfaction  than 
contrition  ; 

{c)  The  evangelical  justification  of  David's  trust  is  fur- 
nished by  Paul,  when,  with  such  cases  in  mind,  he  writes  of 
"  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  ...  to  show  his  righteousness  because  of  the  passing 
over  of  sins  done  aforetime"  (Rom.  3  :  24,  25). 

Thus  both  human  conscience  and  divine  justice  require  an 
atonement  for  sins  that  are  past ;  but  furthermore — 

3.  Instead  of  repentance  being  a  ground  of  forgiveness, 
the  ojfer  of  forgiveness  is  the  occasion  of  repentance.  It  is 
"  the  goodness  of  God  that  leads  to  repentance"  (Rom.  2:4); 
'*  we  love  him  because  he  first  loved  us  "  (i  John  4  :  19;  cf. 

s 


2o6  THE   ATONEMENT 

Ps.  1 30  :  4).  But  unless  we  believe  in  his  abhorrence  of  sin, 
we  have  no  measure  of  his  love  to  sinners.  A  measure  both 
of  his  holiness  and  his  love  is  supplied  in  the  propitiatory 
offering  of  his  Son.  •'  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God, 
but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins  "  (i  John  4  :  10,  cf.  3  :  16 ;  Rom.  5  :  8). 

4.  Moral  penalties  are  very  far  from  being  inapplicable  to 
repentant  and  reformed  sinners. 

{a)  The  power  of  temptation  habitually  yielded  to  is  not 
often  completely  neutralized  by  repentance.  As  a  rule,  it 
sooner  or  later  makes  the  reformed  offender  smart  for  his 
long-abandoned  misdeeds.  To  his  horror  he  finds  that  he 
must  suffer  again  from  the  stress  of  temptations  to  which  he 
no  longer  yields. 

(b)  Painful  regret  for  past  sins  is  peculiarly  characteristic 
of  one  who  has  been  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  sin.  A 
good  man  may  well  doubt  whether  he  can  ever  forgive  himself. 
Indeed,  if  he  feels  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin,  he  cannot 
forgive  himself  until  he  so  identifies  himself  with  Christ  that 
he  can  look  upon  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  his  own  offering. 

{c)  God's  displeasure  too  is  most  keenly  felt  precisely  when 
the  heart  is  no  longer  hardened  against  God.  This  sense  of 
one's  own  detestableness  in  the  sight  of  God  was  heartily  ex- 
pressed by  David  when  he  awoke  to  the  enormity  of  his  crime 
'against  a  fellow-man  (Ps.  51  14).  The  cross  alone,  in  assur- 
ing the  penitent  of  divine  forgiveness,  removes  a  moral 
penalty  of  sin. 

IV.    THE    GOVERNMENTAL    THEORY. 

I .    Typical  form. 

A  theory  devised  against  the  Socinians  by  the  publicist 
Grotius  has  been  revived  in  New  England  against  the  Uni- 


THE  ATONEMENT  ioy 

versalists  and  Unitarians.  This  theory  holds  that  govern- 
ment is  for  the  sake  of  the  governed.  It  is  in  the  interest  of 
the  governed  themselves  that  the  stability  of  the  government 
should  not  be  imperiled  by  the  forgiveness  of  sinners  with- 
out an  exhibition  of  God's  rectoral  displeasure  against  sin. 
But  such  an  exhibition  was  afforded  to  all  moral  beings  in 
the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord.  The  ends  of  public  justice,  of 
benevolence  guided  by  wisdom  in  the  public  interest,  are  fully 
met,  and  distributive  justice,  or  justice  proper,  need  not  press 
its  claims. 

The  atonement,  according  to  the  advocates  of  this  theory, 
has  a  Godward  efficiency,  because  it  makes  it  safe  for  God  to 
forgive  sin ;  but  as  this  safety  is  wholly  due  to  an  impression 
made  upon  moral  beings,  the  efficiency  of  the  atonement 
Godward  reduces  to  an  efficiency  manward.  On  this  account 
the  theory  has  been  pronounced  by  more  than  one  critic  a 
theory  of  moral  influence.  But  it  is  not  a  theory  of  the  same 
kind  of  moral  influence  as  that  to  which  the  Socinian  theory 
reduces  the  work  of  Christ.  The  latter  is  toward  repent- 
ance ;  the  former  is  toward  a  sense  of  the  divine  authority. 
Socinians  insist  that  the  nature  of  God  does  not  require  an 
atonement ;  Governmentalists  urge  that  his  character  of  ruler 
exacts  what  his  nature  does  not  demand. 

2.  Arminian  form. 

This  combines  features  of  the  Anselmic,  Scotist,  and  Gro- 
tian  views.  With  Anselm,  it  teaches  that  Christ  was  offered 
unto  the  offended  majesty  and  holiness  of  God.  With  Duns 
Scotus,  it  holds  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  like  the  Leviti- 
cal  sacrifices,  owes  its  efficacy  to  the  divine  acceptance 
(acceptilation).  It  thus  agrees  with  Grotius  that  Christ 
bore  neither  the  penalty  of  human  sin  nor  an  equivalent  to 


2o8  THE  ATONEMENl* 

it ;  while  it  dissents  from  his  position  that  the  crucifixion  was 
a  mere  exhibition  of  rectoral  displeasure  against  the  sedition 
of  sinners. 

Objections. 

(a)  Distributive  justice  is  the  necessary  reaction  of  divine 
holiness  against  sin,  and  to  waive  its  claims  would  be  to  im- 
pair the  moral  integrity  of  God. 

(d)  In  teaching  that  penalties  may  be  set  aside  at  the 
discretion  of  the  Supreme  Ruler,  the  theory  disregards  the 
indissoluble  connection  between  law  and  its  penal  sanctions. 
By  the  constitution  of  moral  beings  subjective  penalties  in- 
evitably attend  the  infraction  of  moral  laws  ;  and  it  is  un- 
warrantable to  suppose  that  any  ultimate  objective  expres- 
sions of  divine  wrath  will  be  found  merely  discretionary  and 
factitious. 

(c)  In  proportion  as  it  is  made  to  appear  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  histrionic,  or  only  intended  to  create  an  im- 
pression, they  lose  impressiveness.  In  other  words,  the  better 
the  atonement  is  understood  the  less  it  is  worth. 

(d)  The  doctrine  that  the  government  of  God  is  shaped  to 
the  interests  of  the  governed,  and  not  to  the  demands  of  holi- 
ness, involves  a  utilitarian  theory  of  morals  demoralizing  to 
the  individual,  and  rejected  by  the  general  sense  when  society 
is  affronted  by  gross  misdeeds. 

(e)  The  doctrine  is  essentially  political  rather  than  script- 
ural. 

V.    REALISTIC    THEORIES. 

To  whatever  the  present  tendency  to  realism  is  due,  it  un- 
questionably exists.  The  nominalistic  doctrines  of  crea- 
tionism  and  imputationism  are  giving  way  to  the  realistic 
conception  of  a  community  of  nature  between  Adam,  Christ, 


THE  ATONEMENT  209 

and  the  human  race.  This  tendency  is  strengthened  by 
natural  science,  as  we  shall  see,  and  is  in  harmony  with  the 
general  character  of  Schleiermacher's  teaching  that  the  native 
feeling  of  dependence  is  met  by  a  new  life  historically  trace- 
able through  the  church  to  Christ. 

While  realism  is  especially  in  keeping  with  the  idea  that 
Christ  saves  men  by  imparting  his  own  life,  it  is  capable  of 
embracing  every  conception  of  the  atonement,  from  moral  in- 
fluence to  expiation.  Representative  forms  of  realistic  doc- 
trine are  the  following : 

1.  The pantJieistic.  Pantheism  regards  man  as  the  highest 
development  of  that  universal  substance  which  is  at  once 
God  and  nature.  Christ  was  the  first  of  the  human  race  to 
become  fully  aware  of  his  identity  with  God,  and  his  gospel  is 
the  announcement  that  all  men,  like  himself,  are  essentially 
divine.  To  accept  this  good  news  is  to  bring  consciousness 
into  harmony  with  fundamental  reality,  and  thus  to  make  an 
end  of  that  imperfect  and  confused  stage  of  development 
known  as  sin. 

2.  The  realistic  theory  with  subjective  intention.  This 
teaches  that  Christ  was  not  a  man  but  man  ;  that  he  assumed 
not  personal  but  impersonal,  generic,  human  nature,  and  by 
bearing  up  that  nature  against  its  liability,  or  even  its  ten- 
dency to  sin,  purified  and  redeemed  it — his  crucifixion  being 
the  sacrifice  of  that  self-love  which  in  men  becomes  selfish- 
ness. By  faith,  or  by  sympathy,  or  by  enlightenment,  the 
Christian  recognizes  and  participates  in  the  victory  of  Christ 
over  evil. 

3.  With  objective  intention  the  realistic  theory  accepts  and 
emphasizes  the  subjective  view,  but  adds  that  Christ,  in  tak- 
ing generic  human  nature,  assumed  all  the  penalties  attaching 
to  its  fallen  state,  and  these  penalties  culminated  at  the  cross, 


2IO  THE   ATONEMENT 

on  which  human  nature  in  Christ  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,  in  Christ  making  atonement  for  itself  unto  God.  Faith 
now  enables  the  Christian  to  endure  and  to  exhaust  the  in- 
evitable subjective  penalties  of  sin. 

A.  The  realistic  theory,  in  one  or  another  of  its  forms,  has 
the  signal  merits  : 

(a)  Of  seeking  to  ground  the  atonement  in  relations  of  be- 
ing, instead  of  in  a  factitious,  or  a  merely  sympathetic  rela- 
tion of  Christ  to  men  ; 

(d)  Of  setting  forth  Christ  himself  as  the  immediate  object 
of  faith ; 

(c)  Of  emphasizing  the  subjective  value  and  validity  of 
atonement. 

B.  Its  defects  correspond  to  its  merits  : 

{a)  Since  realism  cannot  account  for  expiation  without 
ascribing  to  Christ  the  totality  of  human  nature,  not  merely 
in  the  sense  that  his  humanity  was  complete,  but  in  the  sense 
that  he  took  the  whole  race  upon  himself  ;  and  since  this  sum- 
mation of  mankind  in  him  is  possible  to  the  view  of  only  the 
most  highly  speculative  realism,  the  doctrine  of  universalia 
ante  rem  ;  therefore,  the  alleged  relation  of  Christ  to  the  race 
has  no  greater  degree  of  certainty  than  can  be  claimed  by  a 
generally  discarded  doctrine  of  philosophy. 

{b)  In  presenting  the  personal  Christ  as  the  object  of  faith, 
this  theory  in  all  its  forms  is  apt  to  disparage  the  objective 
value  of  what  he  did  and  bore. 

{c)  In  emphasizing  the  participation  of  the  believer  in  the 
Master's  victory  over  sin,  the  theory  fails  to  show  how  such 
an  advantage  could  be  shared  by  the  worthies  who  lived  and 
died  before  our  common  nature  had  been  rescued  by  the  God- 
man.     This  defect  is  fatal  when  the  atonement  is  declared  to 


THE  ATONEMENT  211 

possess  only  a  subjective  efficacy,  unless  we  adopt  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  a  limbo  patrnni. 

VI.    CONCLUSIONS    FROM    REVIEW    OF    THEORIES. 

1.  All  theories  of  the  atonement  vary  with  the  philosophy 
of  their  times,  metaphysical,  physical,  political,  or  military. 
Nominalistic  philosophy  underlies  the  Federalist  view  that  the 
headships  of  Adam  and  of  Christ  were  due  not  to  relations  of 
being,  but  to  divine  appointment.  Realism  is  the  basis  or 
every  theory  which  regards  human  nature  capable  of  receiv- 
ing Christ  into  the  community  of  its  ills,  and  of  sharing  in 
him  a  common  life.  Scientific  conceptions  of  law  give  an 
ethical  character  to  all  recent  views.  Doctrines  of  political 
expediency  shaped  the  Grotian  and  New  England  theory. 
The  rigorous  mediaeval  demand  of  satisfaction  for  affronted 
honor  was  met  in  the  Twelfth  Century  tenet  of  Anselm. 
The  ancient  law  of  war  which  gave  a  conqueror  property  in 
his  captives  begat  the  patristic  fancy  of  a  ransom  paid  to 
Satan. 

Every  man  holds  some  sort  of  philosophy.  Every  thought- 
ful man  perceives  that  his  philosophy  bears  in  some  way  upon 
the  facts  involved  in  the  atonement.  But  the  history  of 
speculation  on  this  subject  warns  us  not  to  put  undue  con- 
fidence in  theories  concerning  it ;  for,  until  a  final  philosophy 
is  reached  and  correctly  applied,  no  theory  can  be  more  than 
tentative. 

2.  Closely  allied  truth  and  error  are  found  in  the  funda- 
mental assumptions  of  each  theory ;  and,  as  a  consequence, 
each  provides  for  a  special  end,  both  scriptural  and  indispen- 
sable, while  in  nearly  every  case  denying  an  equally  valuable 
end  proposed  by  some  other  theory.  The  mingling  of  true 
and  false  in  fundamentals,  together  with  the  good  ends  con- 


2i^  *rHE   ATONEMENT* 

templated  by  the  several  theories,  may  be  illustrated  as  fol- 
lows : 

It  was  a  fundamental  error  of  the  Fathers  that  Satan  had 
a  right  to  his  captives ;  yet  it  was  fundamentally  true  that  he 
held  men  captive,  and  Christ  achieved  the  end  of  "destroy- 
ing through  death  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is, 
the  devil."  While  we  reject  the  Federalist's  postulate  that 
the  relations  of  God  to  man  turn  on  merely  ordained  head- 
ships of  Adam  and  of  Christ,  he  correctly  teaches  that  Christ 
represented  both  God  and  man  officially,  and  thus  reached  the 
end  of  providing  an  expiation  conformable  to  the  claims  of 
justice.  We  cannot  assume  with  the  Governmentalist  that 
penalties  are  imposed  and  removed  at  discretion ;  yet  he 
rightly  takes  for  granted  that  moral  laws  and  awards  declare 
a  personal  demand  of  God,  are  administered  in  personal  good 
will  and  wisdom  toward  the  governed,  and  that  the  atonement 
aims  to  give  play  to  the  divine  benevolence  by  magnifying 
the  divine  authority.  The  speculative  Realist  is  unable  to 
prove  the  existence  of  generic  human  nature,  in  the  sense  re- 
quired by  the  piacular  phase  of  realistic  theory ;  but  he 
properly  insists  that  the  representative  offices  of  Christ  were 
grounded  in  a  representative  nature,  and  that  the  atonement 
effects,  through  faith,  a  vital  relation  between  the  believer 
and  Christ.  The  Socinian  denies  without  warrant  the  in- 
trinsic necessity  for  an  expiation  of  sins,  but  urges  with  truth 
a  fact  equally  fundamental,  that  God  will  not  reject  the  sacri- 
fice of  a  broken  heart,  and  finds  a  purposed  fruit  of  the 
atonement  in  the  motives  which  it  supplies  to  piety  and 
virtue. 

3.  Since  theories  pretend  to  exclusiveness  precisely  on  ac- 
count of  error  in  their  foundations,  suspicion  is  invited  by 
any  theory  which  fails  either  to  recognize  the  fundamental 


THE  ATONEMENT  213 

truths,  or  to  cover  the  ends  which  have  found  a  wide  ana 
enduring  acceptance  with  faithful  students  of  the  word  of 
God.  Our  endeavor  must  be,  by  closest  adhesion  to  the 
scriptural  data,  and  by  a  minimum  of  theorizing,  to  reach  a 
doctrine  at  once  biblical,  comprehensive,  and  philosophically 
defensible. 

Part  Second. — Biblical  Statement. 

i.  the  mission  of  christ  was  pre-eminently  a  gift  of 
the  divine  love. 

As  a  holy  Being,  God  would  necessarily  wish  to  extirpate 
sin  ;  but,  as  benevolent,  he  sought  also  to  save  the  sinner. 
Prolonged  discussion  of  the  atonement  has  given  to  its  fitness 
for  meeting  the  claims  of  justice  a  prominence  in  dogmatics 
which  the  Bible  accords  to  it  as  an  expression  of  the  divine 
love. 

Characteristic  statements  are  :  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life  "  (John  3  : 
16) ;  "  God  commendeth  his  love  toward  us,  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us  "  (Rom.  5:8);  "  Herein 
is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent 
his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins"  (i   John  4  :  10). 

But  the  love  of  God  was  employed,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
in  furnishing  a  "  propitiation  for  our  sins  "  (cf.  i  John  2  :  2). 
Hence  we  notice,  as  the  further  teaching  of  Scripture — 

II.  CHRIST  WAS  CRUCIFIED  IN  ORDER  THAT  IT  MIGHT  BE 
CONSISTENT    WITH    JUSTICE    FOR    GOD    TO    FORGIVE    SIN. 

The  Old  Testament  forecasts,  and  the  New  Testament  pro- 
gressively unfolds,  this  gracious  provision. 

I.    Some  at  least  of  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  especially  the 


214  THE   ATONEMENT 

sin-offering  and  the  trespass-offering,  were  declared  to  be  a 
covering  for  the  offenses  to  which  they  were  applied  (Lev.  ch. 
4,  5  ;  6  :  1-7  ;  7  :  7  ;  i6  ;  17  :  1 1  ;  cf.  Job  42  :  7,  8).  Whether 
or  not  limited  to  the  purgation  of  ceremonial  defilement,  they 
bred  in  the  Hebrew  mind  a  con\'iction  that  "  without  shedding 
of  blood  is  no  remission  "  (Heb.  9  :  22).  Thus,  both  by  typi- 
cal significance  and  by  inherent  insufficiency,  the  Levitical 
expiations  prefigured  that  adequate  sacrifice  which,  al  the  end 
of  the  age,  was  to  be  offered  once  for  all  (Heb.  7  :  27  ;  ch.  9 ; 
10  :  1-22). 

2,  What  the  law  prefigured  the  prophets  foretold.  Isaiah 
said  of  the  Messiah,  "The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
upon  him"  (ch.  53)  ;  Daniel,  that  he  shall  "be  cut  off,  and 
shall  have  nothing"  (9  :  24-27) ;  Zechariah,  that  "the  sword 
.  .  .  shall  smite  the  shepherd"  (13  :  7),  and  that  the  people 
of  Jerusalem  "  shall  look  unto  me  whom  they  have  pierced  " 
(12  :  10).  Certain  Messianic  psalms  are  to  the  same  effect 
(Ps.  22  and  41).  Finally,  John  the  Baptist  not  only  an- 
nounced the  kingdom,  and,  by  a  strangely  significant  rite  con- 
secrated the  King  (Matt.  3  :  13-15),  but  pointed  him  out  as 
"  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  " 
(John  r  :  29,  cf.  ver.  36). 

3.  Jesus  himself,  when  fully  recognized  by  his  disciples  as 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (Matt.  16  :  16),  began  to  declare 
the  necessity  for  his  death  and  resurrection  (ver.  21).  Some- 
what later  he  interpreted  this  necessity  by  saying  that  he 
"came  ...  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many"  (Mark  10  : 
45,  cf.  I  Tim.  2  :  6).  On  the  eve  of  his  betrayal  he  called 
the  cup  which  he  blessed  "  the  cup  of  the  covenant,"  and  bade 
all  drink  of  it,  because  "  it  is  shed  for  many  unto  remission  of 
sins"  (Matt.  26  :  28).  Finally,  after  the  resurrection,  he 
again  showed  how  "  that  the  Christ  should  suffer,  and  should 


THE  ATONEMENT  8I5 

rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  and  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  "  (Luke  24  : 
46,  47). 

If  the  Gospels  contain  but  few  passages  which  declare  that 
Christ  must  die  for  the  remission  of  sins,  these  passages  are 
sufficiently  explicit.  It  may  be  said  of  them,  as  of  proof- 
texts  adduced  from  the  same  books  for  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord,  that  we  have  little  concern  with  the  many  meanings 
they  can  be  made  to  cover,  but  much  interest  in  the  meaning 
they  naturally  convey.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note  that,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  the  description  of  Jesus  as  "the 
Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  every 
express  attribution  to  his  cross  of  an  expiatory  function  is 
found  in  the  Synoptists,  with  whom,  according  to  popular 
opinion,  we  are  not  to  look  for  the  deeper  truths  of  the 
gospel. 

4.  The  Epistles  fully  disclose  the  piacular  design  of  the 
crucifixion.  The  burden  of  the  first  five  chapters  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans  is  that  we  are  "justified  by  grace  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus ;  whom  God  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  show  his 
righteousness,  because  of  the  passing  over  of  sins  done  afore- 
time "  (3  :  24,  25  ;  cf.  5  :  6,  8). 

Why  it  was  that  Paul  would  know  among  the  Corinthians 
nothing  "save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified  "  (i  Cor.  2  :  2), 
may  be  learned  from  his  own  words  (i  5  :  3),  "  I  delivered  unto 
you  first  of  all  .  .  .  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins."  Quite 
startling  is  his  language  in  the  second  epistle  (5  :  14),  "that 
one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died  "  ;  that  is,  all  have  in  Christ 
borne  the  penalty  of  their  own  offenses. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  an  argument  for  justifica- 
tion through  the  sufferings  of  Christ.     "  Christ  redeemed  us 


21 6  THE  ATONEMENT 

from  the  curse  of  the  law  "  by  becoming  on  the  cross  "  a  curse 
for  us"  (Gal.  3  :  13). 

In  the  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (1:7,  cf.  Col.  1:14)  Christ 
is  said  to  bestow  "  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgive- 
ness of  our  trespasses." 

Peter,  in  his  first  epistle,  bases  an  exhortation  to  patience 
on  the  ground  that  Christ  "  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree"  (2  :  24),  and  "because  Christ  also  suffered  for 
sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous"  (3  :  18,  cf.  i  : 
18,  19). 

The  tersest  putting  of  this  doctrine  is  by  John :  "  He  is 
a  propitiation  for  our   sins"  (i   John  2  :  2,  cf.  4  :  10  ;   i  :  7). 

The  amplest  statement,  in  terminology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  afforded  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which 
elaborately  argues  the  superiority  of  Jesus  Christ  over  all 
whom  the  Jews  most  honored  from  the  complete  sufficiency, 
among  other  things,  of  his  high-priestly  service  in  offering 
himself  unto  God  once  for  all  for  sins  (7  :  27  ;  ch.  9 ;  10  : 
1-22). 

III.  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD  HAD  A  SHARE  IN 
PROCURING  FORGIVENESS. 

I.  This  is  a  marked  peculiarity  of  the  book  of  Acts.  The 
reported  theme  of  Peter's  preaching  is  the  Messiah,  wickedly 
crucified,  triumphantly  exalted,  and,  as  magnanimous  con- 
queror, graciously  disposed  to  forgive  those  who  repent  of 
their  rebellion.  In  none  of  his  addresses  does  Peter  in  terms 
ascribe  forgiveness  to  the  sacrifice,  but  repeatedly  gives  as- 
surance of  it  through  the  enthronement  of  our  Lord.  Be- 
cause the  people  had  crucified  him,  they  ought  to  repent ; 
but  because  God  had  exalted  him,  let  them  accept  him  as 
their  Prince  and  Saviour  (cf.  2  :  23  with  36,  38  ;  3  :  14,  15 


THE  ATONEMENT  217 

with   19;  4  :  10  with  11,  12;  5  :  30  with  31  ;  10  :  39  with 

40-43)- 

Paul's  addresses,  as  here  reported,  are  almost  as  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  procurement  of  forgiveness  by  the  resurrec- 
tion. In  the  earliest  on  record,  that  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  a 
historical  review  after  the  manner  of  Stephen  leads  to  a  state- 
ment of  the  crucifixion,  a  discussion  of  the  resurrection,  and 
an  offer  for  the  first  time  of  justification  by  faith  from  all 
things  from  which  men  "could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of 
Moses"  (13  :  16-39).  The  ground  of  justification  is  not 
stated,  but  the  offer  follows  directly  upon  the  exposition  of 
the  resurrection.  The  sole  explicit  reference  in  the  Acts  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  occurs  in  Paul's  farewell  at 
Miletus  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  to  whom  he  commends  the 
church  of  God  (or  of  the  Lord)  as  "  purchased  by  his  blood  "  (20 : 
28).  Preaching  at  Thessalonica(i7  :  3),  confronting  the  coun- 
cil (2  3  :  6),  accounting  to  Felix  for  the  uproar  in  the  council  (24 : 
15),  explaining  his  doctrine  to  Festus  (25  :  19),  and  defending 
it  to  Agrippa  (26  :  8-23),  Paul  ever,  as  at  Athens,  chooses 
for  his  theme  "Jesus  and  the  resurrection"  (17  :  18,  31).^ 

2.  The  Epistles  furnish  a  more  fully  developed  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  as  well  as  of  the  crucifixion.  In  Rom.  4:25 
he  who  "was  delivered  for  our  offenses  "  is  said  to  have  been 
"raised  again  for  our  justification."  In  8  :  34  escape  from 
condemnation  is  assured  by  the  fact  that  "  it  is  Christ  Jesus 
that  died,  yea  rather  that  was  raised  from  the  dead."  In  10  : 
9  salvation  is  promised  to  him  who  believes  in  his  heart  that 
God  raised  Christ  from  the  dead. 

1  It  is  no  unimportant  mark  of  historical  veracity  that  the  book  of  Acts  does  not 
represent  the  disciples  as  catching  the  import  of  the  crucifixion  during  that  early 
period  when  all  minds  were  taken  up  with  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  with  its  at- 
testation of  his  claims. 

T 


2l8  THE   ATONEMENT 

To  the  Corinthians  Paul  argues,  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen 
your  faith  is  in  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins  "  (i  Cor.  15:17, 
cf.  ver.  14;  John  10  :  17) — a  statement  which  can  hardly  be 
so  interpreted  as  to  deny  to  the  resurrection  all  part  in  secur- 
ing the  remission  of  sins. 

Again,  Paul  wrote  to  the  Ephesians  (4  :  8)  concerning 
benefits  bestowed  by  Christ,  that  it  was  "  when  he  ascended 
on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men." 

The  intercession  of  Christ  is  secured  by  his  resurrection, 
as  Paul  notices  in  Rom.  8  :  34  ;  and  it  is  the  intercession  of 
Christ  which  provides  the  hope  "  sure  and  steadfast  and  enter- 
ing into  that  within  the  veil"  (Heb.  6  :  19,  20).  We  are 
satisfied  that  he  is  "able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  .  .  .  seeing 
he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession"  (Heb.  7  :  25). 

IV.  THE  ATONEMENT  HAS  EFFICACY  FOR  THE  MORAL  RE- 
NEWAL   OF    BELIEVERS. 

In  this  way  the  priesthood  of  Jesus  most  directly  contrib- 
utes to  his  kingship,  and  here  too,  the  prophetic  oflfice  is 
seen  to  merge  into  the  priestly — relations  little  attended 
to  in  dogmatic  inquiry,  but  brought  into  full  view  by  the 
Scriptures. 

I.  The  ancient  Sacrifices  prefigure  in  Christ  a  subjective 
as  well  as  objective,  a  purifying  as  well  as  piacular,  service. 
Recognizing  at  the  appointment  of  the  burnt-offering  inci- 
dental reference  to  expiation  through  the  shedding  of  blood 
(Lev.  I  :  4),  we  find  that  this  sacrifice  was  pre-eminently  an 
act  of  devotion,  whereby  a  man  offered  himself,  and  wherein 
God  accepted  the  worshiper.  It  was  the  nation's  daily  act  of 
worship.  (See  directions  for  the  burnt-offering  in  E.xodus  and 
Leviticus,  also  references  to  it  in  later  writings ;  e.  g.  Ps.  50  : 
8-15  ;  51   :  19;  Isa.   i   :   11  ;  56  :  7  ;  Mark  12  :  33  ;  Rom. 


THE   ATONEMENT  219 

12  :  I.)  The  Passover  also  was  to  be  explained  to  the  chil- 
dren at  its  celebration  as  meaning  that,  because  God  had 
spared  all  the  first-born  of  Israel  when  he  destroyed  all  the 
first-born  of  Egypt,  all  first-born  males  of  man  or  beast  be- 
long unto  the  Lord  (Exod.  13  :  14,  i  5).  This  idea  is  brought 
forward  by  Paul,  when  he  exhorts  the  Corinthians  to  purify 
themselves  because  "  our  passover  also,  Christ,  was  sacrificed  " 
(I  Cor.  5  :  7). 

2.  The  frequent  and  ethically  close  association  in  both 
Testaments  of  repentance  with  forgiveness  shows  that  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  abandonment  of  sinning  are  inseparable,  that 
change  of  a  man's  character  is  involved  in  a  change  of  his 
relations  to  God. 

3.  Our  Lord  unequivocally  claims  that  his  teaching  has 
power  to  transform  men.  He  thus  accords  it  a  part  in  the 
atonement,  and  shows  that  he  identifies  salvation  with  right- 
eousness of  life  (Luke  8  :  12;  John  5  :  34).  Unhappily, 
orthodox  theology  has  left  this  large  and  vital  part  of  the 
Master's  doctrine  to  be  emphasized  by  heretics  ;  apparently 
from  a  fear  that  to  honor  his  teaching  might  be  to  disparage 
his  cross,  as  has  certainly  been  done.  But  this  danger  is 
averted  for  those  who  bear  in  mind  that  the  Saviour's  words 
do  not  claim  to  have,  and  could  not  have,  a  Godward  or  ex- 
piatory office,  but  an  efficacy  manward  and  renovating. 

{a)  In  closing  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Jesus  held  out 
a  promise  to  those  who  keep  his  sayings,  and  a  warning 
to  the  disobedient  (Matt.  7  :  24-29),  which  cannot  be  con- 
strued into  a  Pauline  intimation  that  obedience  is  impossible 
and  ruin  certain.  Especially  in  the  beatitudes,  "  Blessed 
are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  for 
they  shall  be  filled "  ;  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart, 
for  they  shall   see  God";   or  in  that  inimitable   invitation, 


220  THE  ATONEMENT 

"  Come  unto  me  .  .  .  take  my  yoke  .  .  .  learn  of  me  .  .  , 
and  ye  shall  find  rest  "  (Matt.  1 1  :  28-30),  it  would  be 
intolerable  to  find  only  the  stern  and  almost  mocking  for- 
mula of  the  law,  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  the  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do 
them  "  (Gal.  3  :  10).  We  are  to  understand  rather  from 
these  sayings  of  Christ  a  doctrine  correspondent  to  the  stage 
reached  in  the  unfolding  of  his  plans  ;  namely,  that  to  accept 
him  as  Master  and  Teacher  was  to  do  "  the  work  of  God  " 
(John  6  :  29),  to  find  peace,  and  to  be  in  the  way  of  receiving 
whatever  good  his  mission  might  thereafter  provide. 

{b)  The  transforming  power  of  the  Saviour's  teaching  is  a 
special  theme  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John.  "  The 
words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit,  and  are  life  * 
(6  :  63).  "  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free"  (8  :  32).  In  the  end  he  could  assure  his  disciples, 
"Already  ye  are  clean  because  of  the  word  which  I  have 
spoken  unto  you"  (15  :  3).  He  even  said,  "This  is  life 
eternal,  that  they  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  didst  send"  (17  :  3).  Clearly  Christ  did 
not  restrict  his  sayings  to  the  pedagogic  service  found  by 
Paul  in  the  law  of  Moses  (Gal.  3  :  23,  24).  Instead,  there- 
fore, of  the  frequent  explanation  of  these  claims,  that  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  fall  under  the  ancient  Dispensation  of 
Law,  and  prepare  for  the  gospel  by  deepening  the  sense  of 
condemnation,  it  is  better  to  recognize  that  they  belong  to 
the  Dispensation  of  Grace,  and  that  they  avowedly  promote 
the  redemption  of  man  so  far  as  that  consists  in  delivering 
him  from  sin.      Still  more  noteworthy  is  it  that — 

4.   A  transforming  power  is  claimed  for  the  cross. 

(a)  This  again  is  characteristic  of  John.  Apart  from  the  say- 
ing of  John  the  Baptist,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh 


The  atonement  221 

away  the  sin  of  the  world"  (i  :  29),  and  possibly  without  ex- 
cepting this  passage,  the  Gospel  according  to  John  ascribes 
to  the  death  of  Christ  the  office,  not  of  expiation,  but  of  im- 
parting spiritual  life.  The  key  to  the  entire  Gospel  is,  "  In 
him  was  life"  (i  :  4,  cf.  ver.  12,  13).  The  heavenly  mystery 
revealed  to  Nicodemus  was  that,  as  the  serpent  was  lifted  up 
in  the  wilderness  for  a  symbol  both  of  sin  and  suffering 
together  put  away,  so  the  Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up,  and 
for  the  like  purpose,  to  give  eternal  life  {3  :  14,  15).  God 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son  that  believers  might  have  life,  not 
forgiveness  (ver.  16).  Often  styling  himself  the  Bread  of 
life,  the  Water  of  life  (4  :  10,  14 ;  6  :  33,  35,  48-58  ;  7  :  37), 
Jesus  claims  for  his  cross  this  extreme  of  moral  influence,  "  I, 
if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  to  myself  " 
(12  :  32). 

{b)  The  more  important  Epistles  also  ascribe  life-giving 
power  to  the  cross.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  kernel 
of  the  sixth  chapter  is,  "  Reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
to  sin,  but  alive  to  God  in  Christ  Jesus "  (ver.  1 1).  The 
first  part  of  the  seventh  chapter,  using  the  law  of  marriage 
for  illustration,  describes  the  believer  as  dead  to  the  law  by 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  married  to  him  who  is  raised  from  the 
dead  (ver.  4) ;  while  the  second  part  of  this  chapter,  after  re- 
hearsing with  unequaled  force  and  pathos  the  hopeless  strug- 
gle against  sin,  breaks  into  a  groan  of  despair,  "Wretched 
man,  who  will  deliver  me.-*"  and  in  the  next  breath  into  an 
outcry  of  triumph,  "  I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord"  (ver.  24,  25).  The  eighth  chapter  then  follows  with 
an  unbroken  song  of  joy  that  "the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus  set  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death  " 
(ver.  2-4). 

The  testimony  of  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is 


222  THE  ATONEMENT 

particularly  significant.  Chapter  five,  verse  fourteen,  pre- 
sents the  objective  service  of  the  cross  in  an  extreme  form  : 
"  That  one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died  "  ;  but  the  next  verse 
assigns  a  subjective  purpose  :  "  He  died  for  all,  that  they  who 
live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  who 
for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again."  Once  more,  ver.  19  de- 
clares that  God  was  in  Christ  forgiving  sins  ;  ver.  2 1  that 
Christ  vicariously  bore  our  sins,  being  "  made  to  be  sin  on 
our  behalf  "  ;  and  still  the  object  was  "that  we  might  become 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him." 

Paul  nowhere  else  insists  with  so  indignant  emphasis  upon 
the  Godward  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  as  in  writing  to  the 
Galatians  ;  yet  nowhere  else  expresses  so  complete  and  lov- 
ing subjection  of  himself  to  its  life-giving  power.  "  I  have 
been  crucified  with  Christ,  and  I  no  longer  live,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me"  (2  :  20,  cf.  6  :  14,  15). 

The  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Colossians  liken 
the  moral  results  of  the  atonement  to  the  naturalizing  of 
aliens  (Eph.  2  :  13-19;  Col.  i  :  21,  22,  cf.  Titus  2  :  14). 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  the  work  of  Christ 
as  the  establishment  of  a  new  covenant  by  which  believers 
are  brought  into  a  new  alliance  with  God,  the  formal  ratifica- 
tion of  which  according  to  ancient  custom  was  in  blood,  the 
blood  of  our  Lord  (8  :  6-9  :  28).  Again,  it  contrasts  out- 
ward purgations  by  animal  sacrifices  with  inward  cleansing 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  so  that  conscience  is  cleansed  "  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God"  (9  :  14,  cf.  2  :  17,  18). 

The  well-known  doctrine  of  James  is  that  the  gospel  saves 
by  securing  good  works  through  faith  (2  :  14-26). 

Even  Peter's  strikingly  objective  language  always  takes  a 
subjective  turn.  Christ  "  bore  our  sins  in  his  body  on  the 
tree  " — an  emphatically  objective  view  of  his  work ;  but  it 


THE  ATONEMENT  223 

was  done  in  order  "  that  we,  having  died  to  sins,  might  live 
to  righteousness  "  (i  Peter  2  :  24).  "  Christ  also  suffered  for 
sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God  "  (3:18,  cf.  i  :  17-19 ;  4  :  i,  2). 

The  first  Epistle  of  John  contains,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
notice  of  expiation  which  is  wanting  in  his  Gospel ;  but  its 
prevailing  theme  is  still  the  same  :  "  He  that  hath  the  Son 
hath  the  life"  (5  :  12). 

5.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  an  especially  accredited 
source  and  support  of  the  new  life.  Thus  it  is  said  that  even 
when  we  "  were  dead  through  our  trespasses,  God  quickened 
us  together  with  Christ  .  .  .  and  raised  us  up  with  him  " 
(Eph.  2  :  5,  6,  cf.  I  :  19,  20;  Col.  3  :  i).  God  "begat  us 
again  unto  a  living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead  "  (i  Peter  1:3). 

Accordingly  in  baptism,  as  submersion  signifies  being 
buried  with  Christ,  so  emergence  is  a  symbol  of  coming  into 
life  with  him  (Rom.  6  :4-i  i  ;  Col.  2  :  12,  13  ;   i  Peter  3  :  21). 

From  this  survey  we  infer  that  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
concerning  the  atonement  may  be  summarized  as  follows  : 
The  Lord  Jesus,  by  what  he  was  and  is,  by  what  he  did  and 
bore,  has  made  every  provision  required  by  the  holy  nature  of 
God  and  the  fallen  estate  of  man  to  deliver  men  from  the  do- 
minion and  the  penalties  of  sin. 

Part  Third. — Theoretical  Statement. 

The  distinguishing  features  of  any  theory  concerning  the 
atonement  are  fixed,  in  a  synthetic  scheme,  by  the  doctrines 
already  treated.  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  for  these  doc- 
trines and  that  rest  on  common  foundations.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, unwarrantable  to  announce  as  already  settled   certain 


224  THE   ATONEMENT 

postulates  which  will  aid  in  determining  what  each  factor  in 
the  atoning  work  effected,  and  how  it  was  effectual. 

These  postulates  are  the  following  : 

(a)  The  atonement  is  as  distinctly  the  voluntary  gift  of  a 
personal  God  as  though  no  law  were  in  the  universe. 

{b)  It  is  in  as  strict  accord  with  law  as  though  there  were 
no  personal  God.  And,  since  law  inheres  in  the  natures  of 
things,  therefore — 

{c)  The  possibility  and  the  provision  for  an  atonement  must 
be  looked  for  in  the  natures  and  relations  of  the  beings  imme- 
diately concerned,  namely,  Christ  and  men. 

The  method  of  redemption  involves  the  following  particu- 
lars :  I.  In  nature  and  office  Christ  was  the  real  representa- 
tive both  of  God  and  man  ;  II.  As  such  he  actually  bore 
the  sins  of  mankind;  III.  In  bearing  sin  he  made  expiation 
for  it  unto  God  ;  IV.  In  bestowing  expiation  his  atoning 
work  effects,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  moral  renewal  of 
believers. 

I.  Christ  was  the  actual  representative  of  both  God  and 
man :  that  is,  what  he  did  was  to  all  intents  the  act  both  of 
God  and  of  man. 

1.  That  his  words  and  deeds  are  to  be  accepted  as  those  of 
the  Father  follows  from  his  office  as  an  ambassador  of  God. 
Jesus  always  made  such  a  claim  (Matt.  lo  :  40 ;  John  3  :  34 ; 
5  :  23  ;  6  :  29  ;  14  :  9),  and  Christians  do  not  dispute  it. 
But  this  relation,  though  practically  uncontested,  offers  to  the 
theory  of  atonement  a  light  too  little  regarded,  and  of  which 
we  will  presently  seek  to  make  use, 

2.  The  always  open  question  is  how  the  works  and  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  may  be  construed  as  those  of  mankind.     Many 


THE  ATONEMENT  225 

deny  the  benefits  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice,  because  they  cannot 
see  the  possibility  of  a  vicarious  relation.  If,  as  above  postu- 
lated, a  real  representation  of  us  by  Christ  must  be  grounded 
in  the  relations  of  his  being  to  ours,  it  should  be  looked  for 
in  both  the  elements  of  his  being,  the  divine  and  the  human. 
An  ontological  relation,  a  relation  of  being,  then  is  to  be 
sought — 

A.  In  the  fundamental  reality  of  the  theanthropic  nature, 
iti  the  personal  Word  of  God. 

{a)  The  scope  and  variety  of  his  relations  are  seen  in  the 
offices  of  the  pre-existent  Logos  to  the  universe :  by  him  all 
things  were  created  (John  i  :  3,  lo ;  Col.  i  :  16 ;  Heb.  1:2); 
in  him  all  things  subsist  (John  1:4;  Col.  i  :  17;  Heb.  i  : 
3) ;  through  him  God  rules  over  all  (Matt.  28  :  18  ;  John  16  : 
15  ;  Eph.  I  :  22  ;  Col.  1:18;  Heb.  i  :  6,  8  ;  i  Peter  3  :  22); 
summed  up  in  him  (avaxtfakatuxjaa&aC)  all  things  shall  accom- 
plish their  final  cause  (Eph.  1:10;  Col.  1:16,  cf.  Rom.  14  : 

[b)  These  are  connected  relations.  The  originator  of  the 
universe  is  its  proper  support ;  having  all  things  in  his  hands, 
he  necessarily  controls  all ;  complete  acceptance  of  his  sway 
must  be  for  his  creatures,  as  well  as  for  him,  their  final  con- 
summation. 

(c)  These  relations  are  the  closest  that  can  exist.  To  de- 
pend upon  the  Logos  for  the  origin  and  continuation  of  exist- 
ence, to  be  subject  to  his  will,  and  to  find  in  him  the  goal 
and  perfection  of  being,  is  to  be  represented  by  him  in  the 
fullest  degree  conceivable  short  of  a  pantheistic  identification 
of  substance. 

One  of  the  passages  above  referred  to  (Col.  i  :  14-22)  sets 
forth  all  four  relations ;  sums  them  up  in  the  significant  dec- 
laration, "  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  the 


226  THE  ATONEMENT 

fullness  dwell  "  ;  while,  at  its  beginning  and  its  ending,  it  con- 
nects these  cosmic  offices  with  "our  redemption"  and  the 
reconciliation  of  "  all  things  to  himself,  having  made  peace 
through  the  blood  of  his  cross."  As  Rom.  3  :  24-26  most 
completely  sets  forth  what  the  atonement  did  for  us  Godward, 
so  this  passage  is  unique  in  showing  the  ontologic  relations 
which  made  an  atonement  possible. 

These  relations  between  the  Logos  and  the  universe  are 
all-inclusive  up  to  the  point  of  interposing  for  the  redemption 
of  man ;  is  it  possible  that  at  this  point  they  cease  to  be  per- 
tinent ?  Certainly  they  are  deep  and  wide  enough  to  furnish 
room  for  any  service  whatever  which  the  Logos  may  under- 
take in  our  behalf. 

Nor  can  they  be  excluded  from  consideration  on  the  ground 
that  they  involve  a  pantheistic  ontology ;  because  we  add 
nothing  to  the  express  and  accepted  doctrine  of  the  Bible  as 
to  each  of  the  four  relations,  when  we  claim  them  as  a  basis 
for  the  vicarious  relation  of  Christ  to  beings  whom  he  would 
redeem. 

(d)  In  all  these  relations  the  Logos  represents  his  crea- 
tures before  God.  It  is  for  God  that  he  creates  and  sustains  ; 
he  directs  and  subjects  that  "  God  may  be  all  in  all "  (i  Cor. 
8:6;  1 5  :  24,  28).  He  acts  in  all  only  as  agent  and  viceroy 
of  the  Supreme  Being. 

We  might  hesitate  to  say  that  he  is  responsible  to  the  Su- 
preme Being  both  for  his  own  proceedings  and  for  the  acts  of 
those  over  whom  he  is  appointed  to  rule ;  because  it  is  possi- 
ble for  them  as  persons  to  choose  what  course  they  will  pur- 
sue.    Nevertheless — 

(aa)  We  recognize  a  fitness  in  the  appointment  of  the 
Second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  instead  of  the  First,  or  the 
Third,  to  the  task  of  recovering  a  revolted  province ;  and — 


THE  ATONEMENT  227 

(bb)  Presumably  what  our  Lord  said  of  the  completion  of 
his  mission  may  be  carried  back  to  its  assignment,  *'  This 
commandment  I  received  from  my  Father"  (John  lo  :  i8). 
Though  not  without  his  own  acquiescence,  he  was  "  sent  into 
the  world"  (John  3:17;  7  :  29  ;  8  :  42). 

Most  substitutionists  have  felt  that  the  divinity  of  Christ 
was  essential  to  his  vicarious  offices  for  men  ;  they  have  ever 
insisted  that,  if  he  were  only  man,  instead  of  taking  our  place, 
he  would  merely  have  accepted  his  own  place ;  but  that  his 
representative  relations  depended  upon  his  divinity  has  been 
felt,  rather  than  adequately  shown.  Christ  was  further  quali- 
fied to  stand  in  our  place  before  God — 

B.  By  assumiiig  our  nature.  In  becoming  man  the  Logos 
specialized  relations  already  existing.  What  he  now  under- 
takes has  particular  reference  to  the  race  whose  nature  he  has 
put  on. 

All-inclusive  as  those  pre-existent  offices  were,  there  is  no 
one  of  them  which  has  not  attained  through  the  incarnation 
a  higher  significance,  a  completer  efficiency.  The  Word  was 
maker ;  in  this  more  intimate  relation  he  creates  men  anew. 
He  sustained  existence  ;  now  he  is  our  life.  He  had  a  right 
to  reign  ;  but  it  is  the  Son  of  Man  to  whom  every  knee  shall 
bow,  and  whom  every  tongue  shall  confess  as  Lord.  Lastly, 
those  strange  prophecies  about  the  final  consummation,  which 
a  pantheist  might  so  easily  understand  of  a  re-absorption  of 
the  all  into  the  One  (Eph.  i  :  10;  Col.  i  :  16-20),  were  writ- 
ten concerning  him  who  bore  the  name  of  Jesus  and  under- 
took for  men  the  office  of  the  Christ.  Thus  the  relation  of 
the  Logos  to  mankind  was  both  drawn  closer  and  enlarged 
when  he  became  man. 

How  this  was  possible  can  be  most  easily  understood  from 
the  fact  that  human  nature  is  so  organically  one  as  to  consti- 


228  THE   ATONEMENT 

tute  every  man  a  member  of  a  corporate  whole,  much  more 
to  receive  into  oneness  with  all  its  members  him  who  already 
stood  as  the  ground  and  end  of  their  being.  This  explana- 
tion need  not  be  embarrassed  with  the  profound  and  engag- 
ing, but  altogether  speculative  and  questionable,  realism  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  which  teaches  that  generic  human  nature 
exists  so  apart  from  individual  men, — univcrsalia  ante  rem, — 
that  the  Logos  could  take  up  the  totality  of  it  and  enable  it 
to  offer  itself  on  the  cross  for  its  own  offenses.  Yet  there 
is  a  scientific  realism  which  sees  in  human  nature  the  com- 
mon basis  of  all  human  existence, — luiiversalia  in  re, — a  real- 
ism which  finds  in  Christ's  assumption  of  our  nature  the  con- 
dition of  bearing  our  evils  and  even  of  drawing  more  closely 
that  earlier  and  divine  bond,  by  virtue  of  which,  primarily, 
he  might  stand  in  our  place  before  God.     We  notice  then  : 

(a)  Natural  science  is  essentially  realistic.  The  descent  of 
individuals  from  a  common  origin  testifies  that  species  is 
more  than  a  succession  of  individuals  ;  it  is  an  entity  per- 
petuated through  individuals.  The  real  existence  of  species 
is  testified  positively  by  the  persistence  of  type,  negatively 
by  the  uniform  inability  of  animal  hybrids  to  perpetuate  a 
breach  of  type.  This  physical  evidence  for  the  entity  of 
race  is  corroborated  by — 

{b)  The  moral  sentiment  of  solidarity.  Instinctive  in  sav- 
ages, it  is  highly  developed  in  the  civilized.  Nor  does  it  rest 
solely  on  the  physical  fact  of  a  common  origin.  It  would 
acknowledge  as  a  man  a  creature  just  like  ourselves  from  any 
world.     It  is  also  a  wise  and  honorable  sentiment ;  because — 

(c)  The  highest  and  best  of  our  faculties  as  earthly  beings 
are  the  social  faculties  whose  activities  knit  us  together.  We 
are  next  to  nothing  except  as  parts  of  a  whole. 

In  no  hazy,  speculative  sense,  then,  but  in  conscious  and 


THE  ATONEMENT  229 

felt  reality,  human  nature  is  a  vast  unit,  capable  of  receiving 
the  divine  Logos,  and  suitable  for  him  to  put  on.  As  he  did 
so,  pre-existent  relations  of  his  being  to  ours  made  it  impos- 
sible for  Christ  to  be  merely  a  specimen  man,  or  less  than 
the  Son  of  Man,  the  second  Adam,  the  true  representative 
of  all  human  kind.  Being  therefore  in  deepest  reality  the 
representative  of  both  God  and  man — 

II.   Christ  actually  bore  the  sins  of  men. 

1.  As  matter  of  history  Christ  bore  the  sin  of  the  world. 
Coming  to  recover  a  revolted  race,  he  first  declared  in  full 
the  law  of  God,  and  demanded  submission  to  himself  as  the 
Anointed  of  God.  Such  demands  drove  rebellion  to  extremi- 
ties. The  husbandmen  said,  "  This  is  the  heir ;  let  us  kill 
him,  and  the  inheritance  shall  be  ours."  Then  sin  culmi- 
nated in  the  crucifixion. 

It  was  a  bearing  of  all  sin,  not  through  a  reckoning  to 
Christ  of  our  several  acts  of  sin,  but  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
sin,  as  a  principle  of  antagonism  to  God,  went  all  lengths 
against  him  whom  God  had  sent  (John  6  :  29,  cf.  3  :  18). 
Instead  of  the  perplexing  artifice  of  an  immediate  imputa- 
tion, we  meet  here  the  deepest  reality.  The  only  impulse 
which  drives  any  one  into  sinning,  that  common  impulse  which 
makes  the  breaking  of  one  law  the  breaking  of  all  law  (James 
2  :  10),  the  impulse  of  self-willed  opposition  to  the  holy  God, 
broke  forth  in  the  hour  and  the  power  of  darkness  against 
Christ  as  the  representative  of  God  ;  and  so,  in  the  literal- 
ness  of  a  historically  working  principle,  was  "  laid  on  him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all  "  (Isa.  53  :  6). 

2.  Ethically  also  Christ  bore  the  sin  of  the  world. 

(a)  As  one  of  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  human  upon 
the  divine  in  his  person,   Christ  accepted  whatever  moral 


230  THE   ATONEMENT 

evils  were  compatible  with  his  paternity.  The  only  such  evil 
of  which  we  have  evidence  was  his  liability  to  be  tempted  in 
all  points  like  as  we  are.  "  The  likeness  of  sinful  flesh " 
(Rom.  8  :  3)  was  not  a  likeness  but  a  reality  of  flesh,  and  a 
likeness,  not  a  reality,  of  sin.  This  likeness  without  the 
reality  of  sin  was  a  participation  in  our  moral  liabilities. 

How  extreme  this  constitutional  penalty  was  may  be  seen 
in  the  fact  that  temptation  addressed  Jesus  as  the  con- 
sciously divine.  Such  were  the  temptations  in  the  wilder- 
ness, renewed  at  the  close  of  his  mission,  each  corresponding 
to  each,  in  the  suggestion  that  possibly  the  cup  might  pass 
from  him  ;  in  the  knowledge  that  twelve  legions  of  angels 
were  ready  to  deliver  him  ;  and  in  the  peculiarly  Satanic 
challenge  of  priests  and  scribes,  "  Let  him  now  come  down 
from  the  cross  and  we  will  believe  on  him  "  (Matt.  27  :  42). 
That  to  be  thus  tempted  was  inconceivably  painful,  none  can 
doubt.  He  "suffered  being  tempted"  (Heb.  2  :  18).  But 
that  the  consciousness  of  divinity  should  expose  him  to  such 
trials  was  possible  only  under  human  limitation  of  the  divine. 
It  was  the  dreadful  penalty  of  union  with  our  nature  (James 
I  :  1 3)  ;  and  so  by  the  very  constitution  of  his  person  he 
bore  the  sins  of  the  race  ethically. 

(d)  But  that  union  which  imposed  limitations  upon  the 
divine  so  enlarged  the  powers  of  the  human  that  Christ  bore 
the  burden  of  human  sin  upon  his  sympathies  to  an  extent 
impossible  for  a  mere  man.  Identifying  himself  with  us,  and 
undertaking  to  deliver  us  from  sin,  he  felt  the  extent  of  the 
calamity  which  he  sought  to  repair.  Many  recent  thinkers 
find  in  his  sympathy  the  only  endurance  of  our  guilt.  We 
welcome  the  insight  they  offer  into  the  heart  of  our  Lord, 
but  cannot  limit  the  burden  of  sin  to  his  grief  at  it. 

(c)  A  woe  for  which  we  cannot  with  certainty  account,  and 


THE  ATONEMENT  23I 

at  which  he  was  himself  astonished,  deepens  the  mystery  of 
his  death  :  he  lost  the  sense  of  his  Father's  presence.  The 
fact  is  not  affected  by  attempted  explanations.  Whether 
from  a  consciously  vicarious  relation  to  sinners,  or  from  com- 
pleteness of  sympathy  with  them  ;  whether  from  horror  at 
death  as  due  to  sinners,  but  violently  unnatural  to  the  Holy 
One  and  the  Just,  or  from  mere  physical  exhaustion ;  it  is 
certain  that  at  the  last  his  soul  was  filled  with  horror  of  "  the 
outer  darkness."  In  any  case  this  was  occasioned  by  the 
sins  of  men.  Human  guilt  could  lay  on  him  no  further  bur- 
den. He  had  tasted  of  the  second  death  and  the  sacrifice 
was  complete. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  anger  of  God  was 
poured  out  upon  him,  as  many  orthodox  theologians,  without 
warrant  of  Scripture,  have  overboldly  asserted.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Father  loved  him  because  he  laid  down  his  life  (John 
10  :  17).  Nor  was  Jesus  suffering  remorse  for  our  sins.  Re- 
morse is  an  extremely  painful  sense  of  personal  wickedness. 
Yet  the  outcry  of  Jesus  showed  that  consciousness  of  inno- 
cence did  not  save  him  from  feeling  that  he  was  forsaken. 

Now  when  the  enmity  of  sinners  broke  forth  upon  the  Son 
of  God,  it  would  seem  that  uttermost  vengeance  must  fall 
upon  our  ruined  race.  The  cross  was  in  fact  the  condem- 
nation of  sin.  This  was  uniformly  proclaimed  in  the  early 
preaching  of  Peter,  Stephen,  and  Paul,  and  was  understood 
by  their  hearers.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  inquire  how,  in 
bearing  our  sins — 

III.  Christ  offered  an  acceptable  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  in- 
quiry is  twofold  :  (i)  How  the  bearing  of  sin  could  serve  as 
an  expiation ;  (2)  why  the  expiation  may  be  regarded  as 
complete. 


232  THE  ATONEMENT 

I.  The  sin-bearing  ivas  expiatory.  That  it  had  not  solely 
the  etfect  of  condemning  sinners  is  assured  by  the  facts  that 
"  God  commendeth  his  own  love  toward  us  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us"  (Rom.  5  8,  cf.  i  John 
4:  10);  and  that,  though  in  laying  down  his  life  Christ  ful- 
filled a  commandment  received  from  the  Father  (John 
10  :  18),  he  no  less  laid  it  down  of  himself.  The  voluntariness 
df  the  sacrifice  may  not  show  how  the  crucifixion  was  an 
offering  for  sin,  but  it  assures  us  of  the  fact.  He  "  came  .  .  . 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many"  (Mark  10:45,  cf.  John 

How  the  crucifixion  was  an  expiation  as  well  as  a  con- 
demnation is  to  be  gathered  from  the  doubly  representative 
nature  and  ofifices  of  Christ.  Primarily  it  condemned  sin, 
because  it  was  inflicted  upon  the  representative  of  God  ;  but 
it  was  also  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  inasmuch  as  it  was  accepted 
by  the  representative  of  man.  When  Christ  died  for  all,  then 
all  died. 

Though  the  effects  of  these  relations  are  contrasted,  they 
are  inseparable.  Christ  acted  and  suffered  in  man's  place, 
only  when  he  acted  and  suffered  as  representing  God.  He 
bore  for  us  historically  the  consequences  of  sin,  the  extreme 
outrage  of  wickedness,  precisely  in  this,  that  wickedness  was 
directed  against  the  Anointed  of  God.  The  cross  became  a 
propitiation  by  being  a  condemnation.  The  common  factor 
of  these  contraries  was  the  suffering  for  sin.  It  was  a  suf- 
fering for  all  sin,  since  all  sin  was  summed  up  in  the  violent 
rejection  of  the  Christ ;  and  the  evils  thus  borne  were  an  ex- 
piation, because  they  came  upon  our  actual  representative. 

2.  Was  the  offering  adequate  f  This  is  in  every  way 
assured. 


THE  ATONEMENT  233 

(a)  Since  he  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom,  it  is  incredible 
that  the  ransom  should  be  insufficient.  Before  the  cruci- 
fixion the  disciples  thought  too  highly  of  him  to  endure  his 
own  attempts  to  prepare  them  for  his  death  ;  after  the  resur- 
rection they  thought  so  much  more  highly  of  him  that  they 
could  not  well  regard  the  cross  as  less  than  an  adequate 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  And  in  our  day  many 
who  protest  that  the  atonement  is  to  them  a  complete  mys- 
tery, yet  so  honor  Christ  that  they  gladly  rest  in  the  suffi- 
ciency of  whatever  he  actually  undertook. 

(d)  More  specifically,  if  the  dignity  of  his  person  deepened 
the  outrage  of  the  cross,  it  heightened  the  worth  of  the  sac- 
rifice. That  the  sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  is  due  to  the 
infinite  worth  of  the  sufferer  is  elaborately  argued  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  We  may  affirm  of  the  procuring 
cause  in  redemption  as  well  as  of  the  goodness  which  gave 
it,  that  "where  sin  abounded,  grace  superabounded." 

(c)  The  Father's  approval  of  the  Son  secures  the  accept- 
ance of  the  offering.  Grace  is  "  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the 
beloved."  (We  are  "accepted  in  the  beloved."  A.  V.  Eph. 
I  :  6).  Those  early  Socinians  were  not  altogether  wrong  who 
affirmed  that  God  rewarded  the  obedience  of  Christ  with  the 
privilege  of  forgiving  sinners.  And  quite  at  the  opposite 
pole  of  theology,  they  who  regard  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ  as  imputed  to  the  elect  cannot  be  mistaken  thus  far : 
to  wit,  that  the  approved  person  of  the  intercessor  adds  effect 
to  his  intercession. 

(d)  The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  gives  completeness  to 
his  propitiatory  work.  Had  he  sunk  under  the  burden  of  our 
sins  to  rise  no  more,  that  result  would  have  been  fatal  to 
sinners  also.  If  Christ  be  not  raised,  our  faith  is  vain,  we 
are  yet  in  our  sins  (i  Cor.  15  :  17).     But  "he  exhausted  thQ 


234  "^^^  ATONEMENT 

penalty."  The  pains  of  death  could  not  hold  him  (Acts 
2  :  24)  ;  and  when  "  he  ascended  on  high  he  led  captivity 
captive  "  (Eph.  4  :  8). 

Thus  we  see  that,  while  in  laying  their  offenses  upon 
Christ  as  the  representative  of  God,  men  have  completed 
their  own  condemnation,  Christ  in  accepting  that  burden  as 
the  representative  of  mankind  has  offered  an  adequate  ex- 
piation. But  whether  the  sinner  shall  be  condemned  or 
redeemed  by  the  cross,  depends  upon  his  own  attitude.  If 
he  persists  in  rejecting  Christ,  he  identifies  himself  with  the 
crucifiers ;  but  through  submission  and  trust  he  himself  is 
"crucified  with  Christ"  (Gal.  2  :  20).     We  note,  therefore, — 

IV.  77^1?  atonement  is  adapted  to  the  moral  retiewal  of 
believers.     The  entire  work  of  Christ  is  fitted  to  this  end. 

1.  His  teachings  have  a  renovating  power  which  did  not 
belong  to  the  ancient  law.  So  long  as  the  law  but  partially 
reveals  God  it  has  an  appearance  of  arbitrariness,  takes  the 
form  of  positive  requirement,  and  so  far  renders  obedience 
constrained  and  irksome.  On  the  contrary,  the  thorough- 
going and  heart-searching  requirements  of  Jesus  are  felt  to 
be  the  appropriate  and  necessary  demands  of  a  holy  God, 
until  now  at  length  all  men  acknowledge  their  charm.  The 
teaching  and  example  of  Christ,  in  thus  furnishing  the  ideal 
and  begetting  the  desire  for  righteousness,  prepare  the  first 
condition  and  provide  a  fit  instrument  for  the  moral  renewal 
of  men.     The  truth  makes  the  disciples  free  (John  8  :  32). 

2.  In  thus  fully  and  authoritatively  revealing  God,  Jcstis 
becomes  the  Master.  It  would  be  impossible  to  depend  upon 
any  one  for  instruction  on  so  all-important  matters,  and 
avoid  accepting  his  control.     The  disciples  of  Christ  in  all 


THE  ATONEMENT  235 

ages  call  him   Lord,   and  joyfully  accept   his  transforming 
power. 

3.  Both  the  teaching  and  the  personal  ascendency  of  Christ 
culminate  at  the  cross. 

(a)  Here,  he  completes  the  revelation,  on  the  one  hand,  of 
the  holiness  and  the  grace  of  God  ;  on  the  other  hand,  of  the 
wickedness  but  also  ^f  the  worth  of  man. 

(Jf)  Here,  by  making  propitiation  for  sinfulness  unto  holi- 
ness, the  Crucified  establishes  himself  in  our  hearts  as  Lord, 
fulfilling  the  deep  and  beautiful  thought  of  the  psalm : 
"There  is  forgiveness  with  thee  that  thou  mayest  be  feared  " 
(Ps.  1 30  : 4).  Every  step  of  the  process  is  of  profound  im- 
portance. The  assurance  of  forgiveness  heals  the  paralysis 
of  guilt ;  detestation  for  sin  crucifies  the  world  unto  us,  us 
unto  the  world ;  gratitude  persuades  to  obedience,  and  faith 
passes  from  a  mere  acceptance  of  pardon  into  a  transforming 
energy. 

4.  Finally,  we  may  understand  in  part  how  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  is  a  source  to  us  of  spiritual  life.  Enthroning  the 
Messiah  (Rom.  1:4;  Eph.  i  :2o;  Phil.  2:9-11),  it  sum- 
mons us  to  submission  (Acts  5  :  31);  completing  the  atone- 
ment (John  10  :  17  ;  Rom.  4:25;  8  :  34;  Eph.  4  :  8),  and 
showing  that  it  is  complete  (Heb.  10  :  12,  cf.  9  :  28),  it  invites 
our  faith  (Rom.  8  :  34;  Heb.  6  :  19,  20;  7:25;  i  Peter  i  : 
3);  assuring  us  of  immortality  in  Christ  (i  Cor.  i  5  :  20),  it  is 
a  pledge  of  the  always  associated  idea  of  a  true  ethical  life  in 
him  (John  14  :  19,  20;  Rom,  6  :  8-1 1  ;  8  :  2,  10,  1 1  ;  Eph. 
2:5;  Phil.  3  :  10-12;   Col.  3  :3,  4). 

We  conclude  in  general : 

I.  Since  Christ,  the  actual  representative  of  men,  by  bear- 
ing the  penal  consequences  of  sin  made  full  expiation  for  it, 


236  NECESSITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT 

God  withdraws  all  objective  marks  of  his  displeasure  from 
those  who  accept  his  grace. 

2.  The  subjective  penalties  of  sin  are  removed  by  the  re- 
medial energy  of  a  new  life,  derived  from  Christ  through  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

3.  The  cross,  considered  solely  as  imposed  upon  the 
Anointed  of  God,  demands  the  destruction  of  our  guilty  race  ; 
considered  solely  as  accepted  by  the  substitute  of  the  race,  it 
would  ensure  impunity  for  sin.  Its  counter-demands  are 
reconciled  in  acceptance  of  Christ  and  in  the  attendant  sub- 
mission to  him/ 

§  46.  Necessity  of  the  Atonement. 

It  has  long  been  urged  that,  even  if  man  had  not  sinned, 
the  incarnation  would  have  been  needed  either  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  universe  or  for  the  full  revelation  of  God.  But 
there  are  grave  objections  : 

(a)  The  Scripture  indicates  no  occasion  for  the  incarnation 
other  than  sin. 

(d)  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  God  could  not  bring  his  works 
to  perfection  without  subjecting  the  Logos  to  the  limitations 
of  our  nature.  The  incarnation  was  to  retrieve  from  a  lapse, 
not  to  cure  an  inherent  defect ;  it  was  an  intervention,  not 
an  evolution. 

As  to  the  necessity  of  atonement  an  important  distinction 
must  be  made. 

'  Whether  the  four  propositions  in  which  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  set  forth 
a  theory  of  the  atonement  are  satisfactory  in  that  view  or  not,  they  call  attention 
to  facts,  a  recognition  of  which  is  of  moment  to  the  preacher  as  well  as  the  theo- 
logian. It  is  matter  of  fact  that  Christ  by  virtue  of  both  his  natures  stood  a.s  our 
representative  before  God;  it  is  matter  of  fact  that  he  bare  our  sins;  it  is  sheer 
fact  that  the  cross  which  condemned  all  sin  offers  expiation  for  all ;  it  is  a  fact 
that  the  atonement  avails  to  transform  our  affections  as  well  as  to  purge  our  guilt. 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  237 

By  it  may  be  meant  either  that  God  was  in  some  way  coH' 
strained  to  furnish  atonement,  or  that  without  an  atonement 
men  could  not  be  saved. 

I.  If  it  be  asked  whether  an  atonement  was  due  from  God, 
we  may  confidently  reply  that  it  was  not  due  to  man.  Man 
can  claim  justice,  but  by  justice  he  is  condemned.  Relatively 
to  the  sinner,  atonement  is  a  free  gift  (Rom.  5  :  15-17). 

But  was  God  under  any  obligation  to  furnish  a  means  of 
redemption  which  men  could  not  claim  }  To  answer  this 
question  we  must  recollect  that  the  ultimate  standard  of 
moral  obligation  is  the  nature  of  God  himself.  Thus  the 
question  becomes,  Was  God  constrained  by  his  own  nature  to 
give  his  Son  }     We  reply — 

1 .  We  know  that  God,  self-moved  ( i  John  4  :  9),  and  in 
fulfillment  of  his  own  eternal  purpose  (Acts  2:23;  i  Peter 
I  :  19,  20;  Rev.  13  :  8),  has  provided  an  atonement  which 
reveals  his  power,  wisdom,  holiness,  and  love.  Justice  also 
required  atonement  as  a  condition  of  forgiving  sin ;  but  did 
justice  impel  God  to  meet  that  condition  by  providing  the 
atonement .''  When  we  recollect  that  what  is  well  for  any 
being  cannot  be  anything  else  than  what  is  fit  for  him,  we  are 
assured  that  benevolence  and  justice  move  under  different 
impulsions  toward  the  same  end.^  But  if  the  question 
arise — 

2.  Would  it  have  been  compatible  with  the  nature  of  God 
to  withhold  the  atonement  .-*  We  must  reply  that  the  Script- 
ure is  silent  on  this  point,  and  conjecture  would  be  hazardous, 
if  not  unlawful.     The  utmost  we  are  at  liberty  to  say  is  that, 


1  In  God  is  complete  unity  of  necessity  and  freedom.  Grace  is  necessary  only 
as  it  is  free  in  him  ;  it  is  free  only  as  it  is  necessary  to  him  ;  but  the  necessity  and 
the  freedom  are  found  in  the  divine  spontaneity.     God  must  act  out  himseJ^ 


238  NECESSITY   OF  THE   ATONEMENT 

having  undertaken  to  bring  many  sons  unto  glory,  "  it  became 
him  (^k'rtfjenz  aurtfi)  for  whom  and  by  whom  are  all  things  [that 
is,  it  was  suitable  to  his  nature  and  relations]  to  make  the 
author  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  sufferings  "  (Heb 
2  :  10).  If  the  atonement  was  costly,  we  are  warranted  in 
holding  that  to  make  a  costly  sacrifice  was  as  appropriate  in 
God  as  it  was  requisite  for  man. 

II.  That  the  atonement  is  indispensable  for  the  redemption 
of  man  is  evident  from  the  facts  : 

1.  An  atonement  was  provided.  Paul  assures  the  Galatians 
that,  ••  If  a  law  had  been  given  which  could  make  alive,  verily 
righteousness  would  have  been  of  the  law"  (Gal.  3  :  21). 
And  Peter  says,  "  Neither  is  there  any  other  name  under 
heaven,  that  is  given  among  men  in  which  we  must  be  saved  " 
(Acts  4  :  12);  that  is,  it  is  necessary  to  man  to  be  saved  by 
this  name.  Our  Lord  himself  demanded  of  his  disciples  after 
his  resurrection,  "Was  it  not  necessary  that  the  Christ 
should  suffer  these  things,  and  enter  into  his  glory  "  (Luke 
24  :  26). 

2.  T/ie  claims  of  Justice  would  still  hold  against  the  sinner, 
if  Christ  had  not  actually  and  adequately  taken  his  place  (Rom. 
3:26;  Gal.  3:13)- 

Now,  in  declaring  the  righteousness  of  God  by  means  of  a 
"propitiation  (Rom.  3:25),  the  atonement  met  the  further  dif- 
ficulty that — 

3.  To  forgive  sinners  without  an  expiation  would  be  to  im- 
pefil  the  divine  government.  But  through  the  cross  of  Christ 
God  "  magnified  the  law  and  made  it  honorable  "  (Isa.  42  : 
21  ;  Rom.  10  :  4). 

4.  The  purpose  of  God  as  a  holy  Being,  as  a  sovereign 
Ruler  or  as  a  gracious  Benefactor  would  remain  unfulfilled. 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  239 

and  human  needs  unmet,  if  believers  were  to  continue  in  sin. 
The  atonement  is  the  only  effective  instrument  to  break, 
through  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  bonds  of  sin  (Rom.  6  :  i-i  i  ;  2 
Cor.  5:21;  Gal.  2  :  20 ;   i  Peter  3  :  18). 

5.  If  the  question  arise  how  the  needs  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment worthies  were  met  in  the  atonement,  we  may  reply 
that — 

{a)  So  far  as  the  atonement  has  Godward  efficacy,  as  an 
offering  to  the  divine  justice,  it  is  retroactive.  Paul  says  ex- 
pressly that  it  had  reference  to  "sins  done  aforetime"  (Rom. 
3:25,  cf.  Heb.  9:15,  26). 

{b)  So  far  as  its  efficacy  is  man  ward,  that  is,  serves  to  win 
men  from  sin,  the  atonement  cannot  help  those  who  never 
hear  the  good  news  (Rom.  10  :  13-15),  whether  they  are 
ancient  Israelites  or  modern  heathen.  In  this  regard  the 
greatest  among  them  is  less  than  "  the  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven"  (Matt.  11  :  11,  cf.  Heb.  11  :  39,  40).  And  yet 
those  who,  in  any  age  and  under  any  degree  of  ignorance,  are 
persuaded  of  the  divine  love,  may  love  God  because  he  first 
loved  us  (I  John  4  :  19). 

§  47.  Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  topic,  two  questions  are  involved  : 
I.  Was  the  atonement  intended  for  all  men  }  2.  Was  it  ade- 
'  quate  for  all  .■* 

I.  In  respect  of  the  divine  purpose,  the  atonement  may  be 
called  either  "general"  or  "particular."  The  new  Testa- 
ment declares  with  equal  distinctness  that  Christ  died  for  all 
men,  and  that  he  died  in  a  special  sense  for  some  men.  Thus, 
on  the  one  hand,  we  are  told  that  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  "  (John  3  :  16,  cf.  i  John 
4  :  14) ;  that  "he  died  for  all"  (2  Cor.  5:15,  cf.  ver.  19), 


240  EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT 

that  he  "gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all "  (i  Tim.  2  •  6) ;  that 
God  "wishes  all  men  to  be  saved  "  (i  Tim.  2  :  4),  and  that 
Jesus,  "  by  the  grace  of  God,  might  taste  death  for  every 
one  "  (Heb.  2  :  9).  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  said,  "  I  lay 
down  my  life  for  the  sheep"  (John  10  :  15),  and  Paul  wrote 
that  Christ  "loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it  "  (Eph. 
5  :  25,  cf.  Acts  20  :  28).  Both  aspects  of  the  case  are 
presented  together  in  i  Tim.  4  :  10;  "the  living  God  .  .  . 
is  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  believers." 

Without  pretending  to  know  how  these  different  phases  of 
truth  harmonize,  we  conclude  that  the  purpose  of  the  atone- 
ment is  general,  in  so  far  as  God  is  "  not  wishing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance"  (2 
Peter  3:9);  and  that  it  is  particular,  in  so  far  as  human 
destiny  "  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  hath  mercy"  (Rom.  9  :  16). 

2,  As  to  the  adequacy  of  the  atonement  for  all  men  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.     Recalling  its  provisions — 

{a)  We  do  not  find  that  the  burden  laid  upon  Christ  was 
graduated  to  the  number  of  persons  who  were  to  be  saved. 
On  the  contrary,  we  are  expressly  assured  of  its  sufficiency 
for  all :  "  One  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died  "  (2  Cor.  5  :  14); 
Jesus  Christ  "  is  a  propitiation  for  our  sins  ;  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world  "  (i  John  2  :  2). 

{b)  The  gospel  is  as  fit  an  instrument  for  the  spiritual  re- 
newal of  all  as  of  any,  who  do  not  reject  it. 

The  summary  statement  long  familiar  among  Calvinists  is 
therefore  satisfactory  ;  namely,  that  the  atonement  is  suffi- 
cient for  all  men,  efficient  for  the  elect.' 

*  Is  the  atonement  applicable  to  other  fallen  races  in  other  worlds  ?  Whether 
God  means  to  save  such  races,  if  such  there  be,  is  matter  of  speculation  ;  but  as 
to  the  fitness  of  the  atonement  we  may  say — 


THE   INTERCESSION    OF  CHRIST 


241 


§  48.  The  Intercession  of  Christ. 

Having  finished  on  earth  the  priestly  function  of  sacrifice, 
Christ  assumed  in  heaven  the  priestly  office  of  intercession 
(Rom.  8  :  34).  He  began  to  exercise  this  office  while  yet 
upon  earth,  although  he  had  not  yet  completed  the  work  on 
which  the  special  efficacy  of  his  intercession  depends.  He 
prayed  for  Simon  that  his  faith  might  not  fail  (Luke  22  :  32), 
and  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  John  is  his  prayer  of  inter- 
cession for  the  church. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  elaborates  this  doctrine  from 
the  point  of  view  furnished  by  the  law  of  Moses.  On  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement,  while  the  high  priest  was  making 
expiation  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  all  other  sacrifices  were  sus- 
pended in  deference  to  the  sufficiency  of  that  in  which  the 
high  priest  was  engaged,  and  no  one  besides  him  was  per- 
mitted in  the  tabernacle  (Lev,  16  :  17).  In  like  manner 
Christ,  the  perpetual  high  priest,  alone  and  continually  pre- 
sents to  God  in  the  true  temple  the  sufficient  sacrifice  which 
he  had  made  once  for  all  (Heb.  7  :  24-28  ;  8  :  i  to  10  :  22). 

In  I  John  2  ;  i  the  intercession  of  Christ  is  represented 
as  that  of  an  advocate  for  his  clients. 

These  various  representations  ought  not  to  be  taken  liter 
ally.  Christ  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  incessantly  making  peti- 
tion for  his  saints,  all  and  each ;  nor  as  endorsing  at  the  same 
instant  to  th«  Father  the  various  prayers  which  are  inces- 

(a)  Col.  I  :  20  states  that  the  reconciliation  is  wide  as  the  universe;  Phil.  2  :  9- 
1 1  that,  in  consequence  of  his  humiliation,  all  beings  shall  bow  to  Christ  and  con- 
fess him  Lord  ;  while  Eph.  3  :  10  tells  us  that  the  wise  plan  of  redemption  is 
made  known  in  the  heavenly  realms  through  the  church.  It  would  therefore  seem 
applicable  to  all  whom  God  may  will  to  save,  and  may  make  it  known  to. 

(6)  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  God  would  submit  the  Son  to  a  succession  of  incar- 
nations and  deaths,  to  an  accumulation  of  natures,  or  to  the  abandonment  of  his 
humao  nature.    In  a  word,  if  speculation  on  this  theme  is  idle,  it  is  not  formidable. 

V 


242  THE   ORDO  SALUTIS 

santly  offered  in  his  name  ;  nor  as  perpetually  recalling  to  the 
Father's  notice  the  sacrifice  made  on  Calvary.  And  yet  his 
intercession  is  equivalent  to  all  this.  It  may  perhaps  be  best 
conceived  as  so  complete  an  identification  of  Christ  with  be- 
lievers that,  on  the  one  hand,  he  is  their  perpetual  surety 
unto  God ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  sufficient  assurance  to 
them  that  God  will  accept  the  petitions  which  they  offer  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  as  if  he  were  offering  them  for  himself 
(John  14  :  13,  14 ;  16  :  24,  26  ;  Eph,  5  :  20 ;  Heb.  7  :  22  ; 
I   John  2  :  12). 

If  the  completeness  of  the  atonement  would  seem  to  make 
intercession  unnecessary,  on  the  other  hand,  atonement  iden- 
tifies us  with  Christ  and  makes  intercession  appropriate. 

§  49.  The  Ordo  Salutis. 

Having  studied  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Christ, 
we  have  next  to  consider  how  these  become  available  to  the 
individual.  The  reply  constitutes  the  Doctrines  of  Grace. 
The  order  of  their  presentation  follows  whatever  is  regarded 
as  the  true  Ordo  Salutis.  Regeneration  is  often  allowed 
precedence  over  justification,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  unrenewed  heart  to  exercise  faith,  the  chief  con- 
dition of  being  justified. 

But  it  would  seem  more  natural  for  justification  to  clear 
away  the  ruins  of  the  old  life  before  regeneration  lays  the 
foundation  of  the  new  life  ;  particularly,  since  the  chief  objec- 
tion urged  against  a  moral  influence  theory  of  atonement  is 
that  the  guilt  of  the  past  must  be  cancelled  before  future 
obedience  can  either  be  secured,  or  could  be  accepted ;  and 
until  the  sinner  is  justified,  his  guilt  remains.  The  only  im- 
perative reason  for  giving  the  first  place  to  regeneration  is 
met,  if  the  divine  conditions  of  individual  salvation,  namely. 


KLECTION   AND  CAI^LING  24^ 

election  and  calling,  are  placed  before  the  human  conditions, 
namely,  repentance  and  faith. 

For  these  and  other  considerations  the  best  order  of  study 
would  seem  to  be  the  following :  Firsty  the  conditions  of  in- 
dividual salvation:  namely,  the  divine  conditions,  election 
and  calling  ;  the  human  conditions,  repentance  and  faith ; 
secondly,  the  content  of  individual  salvation:  namely,  justifi- 
cation, regeneration,  and  the  divine  and  the  human  aspects  of 
edification,  to  wit,  sanctification  and  perseverance. 

§  50.  Election  and  Calling. 

The  salvation  provided  for  all  is  secured  by  but  part  of  our 
race.  This  result  is  referred  by  the  Scriptures  to  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  and  the  depravity  of  man.  How  these  factors 
in  the  problem  are  related  has  been  for  the  fifteen  hundred 
years  since  Augustine  a  theme  of  vehement  controversy. 
Not  content  with  the  explicit  teachings  of  the  Bible,  every 
party  to  the  controversy  has  pushed  its  inferences  into  the 
unrevealed  secrets  of  the  Divine  mind,  and,  while  it  has 
warned  others  that  we  cannot  understand  the  relations  of  the 
Infinite  to  the  finite,  has  used  this  fact  for  the  defense,  rather 
than  for  the  correction,  of  its  own  theories.  As  to  no  other 
doctrine  is  it  more  important  to  distinguish  between  what 
the  Bible  plainly  teaches  and  what  is  but  more  or  less  prob- 
ably inferred  from  the  Bible,  from  Christian  experience,  or 
from  philosophy. 

The  strict  Calvinistic  scheme  teaches  that  God  from  eter- 
nity predestined  certain  men  to  eternal  life,  and,  passing  over 
others  (pretention),  condemned  them  to  eternal  death  (repro- 
bation) ;  that  the  selection  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved  was 
in  every  case  a  sovereign  decree,  uninfluenced  by  what  God 
foreknew  concerning  the  elect ;  and  that  while  a  general  or 


^44  EI^ECTION   AND  CALLING 

outward  call  to  obedience  and  faith  is  bestowed  on  all  men, 
the  elect  are  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  sin  by  a  special 
and  inward  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  call  which  becomes  ef- 
fectual against  native  depravity  only  by  being  irresistible. 

These  positions  have  been  objected  to,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  by  all  anti-Augnstinian  Romanists  and  anti-Calvinistic 
Protestants :  by  Pelagians,  on  the  ground  that  every  man  has 
full  power  to  choose  or  to  turn  from  sin  ;  by  semi-Pelagians, 
on  the  ground  that,  although  weakened  by  the  fall,  man  is 
able  to  attempt,  and  upon  attempting  receives  divine  grace  to 
achieve,  his  own  conversion  ;  by  the  council  of  Trent,  upon 
the  ground  that  the  human  will  co-operated  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration  ;  by  Lutherans,  on  the  ground  that, 
although  the  human  will  does  not  co-operate  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  does  not  in  all  cases  reject  the  Spirit,  and  that,  al- 
though disabled  by  natural  depravity  from  choosing  righteous- 
ness,  man  is  able  to  choose  the  means  of  grace ;  by  early 
Arminians,  on  the  ground  that  man  has  ability  by  nature, 
by  Wesleyans,  on  the  ground  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
atonement,  he  has  ability  by  grace,  to  accept  the  gospel  ;  by 
all  objectors,  on  the  ground  that  God  elected,  individually  or 
collectively,  those  who,  as  he  foresaw,  would  believe  in 
Christ. 

The  problem  is  three-fold  :  as  to  individual  election  ;  as  to 
conditions  of  election  ;  as  to  execution  of  election. 

I.    FACT    OF    ELECTION. 

I.  As  to  the  Elect. 

While  the  Scriptures  teach  that  God  predestinated  certain 
persons  to  special  functions  in  his  kingdom,  as  the  Hebrew 
patriarchs,  David  and  his  house,  and  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  his- 


ELECTION   AND  CALLING  245 

toric  doctrine  of  election  is  that  God  from  eternity  predes- 
tined certain  men  to  be  saved.  Individual  election  is  repre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament  as— 

(a)  A  direct  inference  from  the  sovereignty  of  God.  "  He 
hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will "  (Rom.  9:18);  "foreordained 
according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after 
the  counsel  of  his  will  "  (Eph.  i  :  11,  cf.  ver.  5). 

(d)  The  first  step  in  salvation  by  grace.  "Who  saved 
us  .  .  .  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his 
own  purpose,  and  the  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus  before  eternal  ages"  (2  Tim.  i  :  9,  cf.  Rom.  9  :  16). 
"The  election  of  grace"  (Rom.  11  :  5). 

(c)  The  security  for  benefits — "  All  things  work  together 
for  good  to  those  .  .  .  who  are  called  according  to  his  pur- 
pose "  (Rom.  8  :  28,  cf.  ver.  29,  30) — and  the  assurance  of 
safety — "Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect?"  (Ver.  33.)     Election  is  therefore  presented  as — 

(dj  An  occasion  for  thanksgiving  and  joy.  "  We  ought  to 
give  thanks  to  God  always  for  you  .  .  .  because  God  from 
the  beginning  chose  you  to  salvation  "  (2  Thess.  2:13). 

So  unmistakably  is  election  of  individuals  unto  life  taught 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  the  dispute  among  candid  exe- 
getes  is  rarely  now  concerning  the  fact  of  election,  but  con- 
cerning its  grounds  or  conditions. 

2.  As  fo  the  Non-elect. 

Are  any  foreordained  to  sin  and  perish  .-*  Texts  are  not 
wanting  which  have  been  so  understood.  Thus,  in  the  ninth 
chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  accounts  for  the  rejection  of  Israel 
by  arguing  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  whose  heart  God  hard- 
ened, that  "whom  he  will  he  hardeneth  "  (ver.  17,  18),  and 
further  asserts  that  God  may  be  willing  "  to  show  his  wrath 


246  ELECTION  AND  CALLING 

and  to  make  his  power  known  .  .  .  (on)  vessels  of  wrath 
fitted  to  destruction  "  (ver.  22,  cf.  i  Pet.  2  :  8). 

But  the  same  narrative  in  Exodus  (ch.  7-1 1)  tells  us  that 
Pharaoh  hardened  his  own  heart,  and  that  God's  share  in 
this  result  was  simply  to  grant  the  tyrant  "  respite  "  by  re- 
moving the  plagues  ;  while  the  sombre  ninth  of  Romans 
itself  closes  its  account  of  Israel's  failure  by  ascribing  it  to 
unbelief  (ver.  31,  32).  As  though  Paul  intended  to  warn  us 
against  taking  in  bald  literalness  the  sayings  that  lay  a  sin- 
ner's ruin  to  the  will  of  God,  he  quotes  Psalm  69  :  "  Let 
their  table  be  made  a  snare,  and  a  trap,  and  a  stumbling- 
block,"  and  at  once  adds,  "I  say  then,  did  they  stumble  in 
order  that  they  might  fall  1     Far  be  it  "  (Rom.  11  :  9-1 1). 

The  question  for  us  is  not,  How  reconcile  these  seemingly 
inharmonious  passages .''  but,  Why  infer  from  any  of  them  a 
doctrine  adverse  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  Bible,  while  the 
disproof  of  such  an  inference  is  afforded  by  the  context  ? 
The  expressions  formerly  appealed  to  in  support  of  predesti- 
nation to  sin  and  perdition  are  therefore  inconclusive,  and  not 
the  less  so  because  they  remain  a  mystery. 

The  doctrine  of  predestination  is  strongly  reinforced  by 
Natural  Theology.  The  argument  is  brief  and  cogent :  God 
foreknew  what  would  come  of  creating  the  human  race,  and 
he  created  it.  If  this  does  not  involve  a  purpose  to  create 
some  who  would  be  saved,  and  others  who  would  be  lost, 
forethought  can  have  no  relation  to  purpose.  But  while  the 
good  which  falls  to  some  must  have  been  intended,  the  evil 
which  comes  to  others  need  be  regarded  only  as  allowed.* 


'  Two  views  have  been  held  among  Calvinists  as  to  the  logical,  not  temporal, 
order  of  decrees. 

According  to  Supralapsarianism,  God  decreed  that  some  human  beings  should 


ELECTION  AND  CALLING  247 

II.    CONDITIONS    OF    ELECTION. 

Passing  by  the  certainty  that  those  who  were  foreordained 
to  functions  were  selected  in  view  of  their  foreseen  fitness, 
we  reach  the  vital  issue  in  the  controversy  over  election, 
Why  did  God  select  some  men  to  be  saved  rather  than  others  } 
The  Bible  does  not  give  the  answer,  and  reason  has  only  con- 
jectured it.  Taking  care  to  distinguish  what  we  may  claim 
to  know  from  what  we  only  infer,  we  conclude  : 

I.  Predestination  to  eternal  Uie  is  p\a.in\y  conditioned ii/>on 
the  foreknowledge  of  God.  Peter  calls  those  to  whom  he 
wrote,  "  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God "  (i 
Peter  i  :  2).  Paul's  familiar  language  is,  "  Whom  he  foreknew 
he  also  predestined  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son  " 
(Rom.  8  :  29).  Whatever  else  "  foreknow "  may  mean,  it 
means  foreknow.  This  does  not  affect  the  divine  autonomy 
in  election.     God  need  not  act  blindly  in  order  to  act  freely,* 

be  saved  unto  the  glory  of  his  grace,  and  others  lost  unto  the  glory  of  his  justice  ; 
that  to  this  end  he  would  create  the  human  race  ;  that  he  would  permit  the  fall ; 
that  he  would  provide  an  atonement  for  the  elect.  This  doctrine  is  called"  Supra- 
lapsarian,"  because  it  teaches  that  the  decree  of  election  logically  precedes  the  de- 
cree to  permit  the  fall. 

Sublapsarianism  (or  Infralapsarianism)  holds  that  the  decree  to  elect  followed 
the  decree  of  the  fall,  and  is  the  usual  doctrine,  so  far  as  the  order  of  decrees  now 
engages  attention.     It  takes  two  forms  : 

{a)  Those  who  hold  to  particular  atonement  place  the  decrees  in  the  following 
order :  the  decree  to  create,  to  permit  the  fall,  to  save  some,  to  provide  atonement 
for  the  elect. 

{b)  For  those  who  contend  that  election  is  in  Christ,  and  that  atonement  is  gen- 
eral, the  following  has  been  proposed  as  the  true  order :  the  deciee  to  create,  to 
permit  the  fall,  to  provide  atonement,  to  secure  its  acceptance  by  some. 

'  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  thus  states  the  harmony  of  this  doctrine  of  foreknowledge 
with  strict  Calvinism :  "  The  predestination  follows  and  is  grounded  on  the  fore- 
knowledge. The  foreknowledge  therefore  expresses  the  act  of  cognition  or  recog- 
nition, the  fixing,  so  to  speak,  the  mind  upon,  which  involves  the  idea  of  selec- 
tion."— Hodge  on  Romans,  p.  ^7. 


248  EIvECTlON   AND  CALLING 

It  is,  indeed,  objected  that  he  cannot  know  a  future  event 
as  certain  until  it  has  been  made  certain  by  his  decree ;  but 
the  sufficient  reply  is,  God  knows  how  to  choose  only  by 
foreknowing  what  would  be  involved  in  the  different  plans 
between  which  he  may  choose. 

2.  None  arc  elect  on  account  of  foreseen  merit.  Election  is 
wholly  of  grace.  For  this  reason  the  doctrine  of  election  is 
prized  as  a  "doctrine  of  grace."  To  this  effect  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul :  "  .  .  .  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  by 
grace,  it  is  no  longer  of  works  ;  otherwise  the  grace  becomes 
no  longer  grace  "  (Rom.  1 1  :  5,  6 ;  9  :  1 1  ;  Eph.  i  :  6 ;  2  Tim. 

1:9). 

3.  Although  God  is  sovereign,  he  is  not  capricious  ;  he  does 
not  choose  without  sufficient  reason.  As  to  what  his  reasons 
are,  two  accounts  have  been  inferred  and  are  met  by  opposite 
inferences. 

{a)  Because  he  is  sovereign,  his  reasons  cannot  lie  outside 
himself ;  but  it  is  replied  that,  because  he  is  unchangeable, 
his  reasons  cannot  exist  within  himself — his  relations  to  other 
beings  must  turn  on  differences  in  them. 

{b)  Human  ill-desert  proves  that  they  cannot  be  in  man  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  gift  of  his  Son  for  all  proves 
that  they  cannot  exclude  any  man.     Therefore — 

4.  Anti-Calvinists  argue  that  the  ground  of  selection  is  the 
foreseen  faith  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved. 

{a)  A  scripture  cited  is  that  "  as  many  as  received  Christ, 
he  gave  to  them  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name"  (John  i  :  12);  but  to  this 
it  is  replied  that  "  as  many  as  were  appointed  unto  eternal 
life  believed"  (Acts  13  :  48).  If  the  invitations  of  the  gos- 
pel seem  to  imply  that  the  salvation  of  any  man  turns  on  his 
own  free  choice,  it  is  objected  that  "a  natural  man  receives 


ELECTION   AND   CALLING  249 

not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  ,  .  .  and  he  cannot 
know  them  "  (i  Cor.  2:14).  Support  for  this  view  is  sought 
from — 

{b)  The  relation  of  election  to  other  doctrines.  Almost  all 
agree  that  faith  itself  is  wrought  in  man  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  anti-Calvinists  claim  that  the  heart  is  not  altogether  pas- 
sive in  accepting  the  gift  of  faith.  We  could  know  whether 
faith  on  man's  part  is  a  condition  of  election,  if  we  could 
know  whether  the  soul  is  entirely  passive  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  this  form  the  issue  always  reduces. 
But  we  reach  here  the  third  aspect  of  the  doctrine. 

in.    EXECUTION    OF    ELECTION THE    DIVINE    CALLING. 

The  problem  with  which  we  pass  to  consideration  of  the 
divine  call  cannot  be  solved  ;  we  cannot  know  whether  the 
human  will  co-operates  with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  executing  the 
divine  election,  because  we  cannot  know  how  the  Holy  Spirit 
changes  the  heart.  The  Master  himself  so  notified  Nico^ 
demus  (John  3  :  8),  and  the  effort  to  settle  the  long-debated 
question  is  in  disregard  of  his  notification. 

A  special,  inward,  and  irresistible  call  is  inferred  by  Calvin- 
ism from  the  total  inability  of  the  natural  man  to  receive  the 
things  of  the  Spirit ;  while  Wesleyanism  infers  from  the  atone- 
ment that  ability  to  accept  the  general  call,  though  wanting 
by  nature,  is  restored  to  all  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  neither 
of  these  positions  is  there  any  direct  scriptural  support.  The 
case  stand  thus  : 

(a)  The  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ordinarily  repre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament  as  a  gift  to  the  church  ;  yet 
two  passages  inform  us  that  he  has  a  mission  to  the  world. 
Our  Lord  stated  that  this  mission  is  to  "  convict  the  world 
in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment" 


250  ELECTION   AND  CALLING 

(John  16  :  8-11).  In  performing  this  office  the  Spirit  may 
be  resisted  and  repelled,  as  Stephen  protested  before  the 
council  :  "  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit :  as  your 
fathers  did,  so  do  ye"  (Acts  7  :  51).  Yet  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  say,  as  Wesleyans  do,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
confers  on  the  world  ability  to  accept  the  gospel,  and  that 
this  ability  precedes  a  change  of  heart.  But,  on  the  other 
hand, — 

(<^)  The  New  Testament  nowhere  declares,  nor  even  inti- 
mates, as  Calvinists  hold,  that  the  general  call  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  insufficient.     And  furthermore — 

(c)  It  nowhere  states  that  the  efficient  call  is  irresistible. 
Psychologically,  to  speak  of  irresistible  influence  upon  the  fac- 
ulty of  self-determination  in  man  is  express  contradiction  in 
terms. 

No  harm  can  come  of  acknowledging  that  we  do  not  know 
God's  unrevealed  reasons  for  electing  one  individual  rather 
than  another  unto  eternal  life. 

A.  The  Calvinist  need  not  deny  that  foreseen  faith  can  be 
the  condition  of  election. 

{a)  His  only  evangelical  interest  is  to  avoid  the  doctrine 
that  men  can  be  saved  by  works.  But  freedom  of  grace  is 
assured  even  though  faith  be  a  condition  of  election.  Faith 
is  indeed  a  work,  and  a  meritorious  work  (John  6  :  29) ;  yet 
in  its  relation  to  justification  and  salvation,  faith  is  always 
contrasted  with  works.  Whatever  its  merit,  that  merit  does 
not  here  avail.  Now  if,  without  disparagement  to  grace, 
faith  can  be  the  condition  of  justification,  why  might  it  not 
be  the  condition  of  election  }  That  it  is  such  the  Bible 
nowhere  states  nor  is  there  any  other  way  of  knowing  ;  but, 
inasmuch  as  salvation  is  received  as  a  gift  only  on  condition 


REPENTANCE   AND   EAITH  25 1 

of  faith  exercised,  it  is  in  purpose  a  gift,  even  if  only  on  con- 
dition of  faith  foreseen.^ 

(b)  Election  is  not  the  less  sovereign  if  conditioned  upon 
foreknowledge  of  faith.  Foreknowing  what  his  creatures 
would  do,  God  decreed  their  destiny  when  he  decreed  their 
creation  ;  and  this  would  still  be  the  case  although  every  man 
had  the  partial  control  over  his  destiny  that  Arminians  aver, 
or  even  the  complete  control  that  Pelagians  claim.  The 
decree  is  as  absolute  as  though  men  had  no  freedom,  but  it 
leaves  them  as  free  as  though  there  were  no  decree.'' 

B.  Anti-Calvinists  need  not  insist  that  foreseen  faith  is  the 
condition  of  election.  Their  evangelical  interest  is  in  vindi- 
cating the  goodness  of  God  and  the  possibility  of  salvation 
for  all.  But,  although  the  election  and  its  grounds  be  as 
secret  as  Calvinists  insist,  their  secrecy  does  not  imply  that 
they  are  evil,  while  the  gift  of  Christ  for  all  assures  us  that 
no  needful  provision  has  been  omitted  (Rom.  8:32). 

We  conclude  that  individual  election  is  certain,  while  the 
conditions  of  election,  and  the  processes  of  its  execution, 
are  unknown. 

§  51.     Repentance  and  Faith. 

When  election  by  the  Father  has  become  operative  through 
effectual  calling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  sinner  is  enabled  to 
meet  the  indispensable  conditions  of  his  salvation  :  he  repents 

1  Foreseen  faith  would  be  excluded  as  a  condition  of  election  only  in  case  faith, 
which  is  the  condition  of  every  spiritual  gift,  were  wrought  in  the  sinner  against 
his  will ;  but  against  this  supposition  the  least  that  can  be  said  is  that  we  do  not 
know  it  to  be  true. 

'  Reason  is  confronted  by  the  paradox  that  the  divine  decrees  are  at  once  abso- 
lute and  conditional ;  the  resolution  of  the  paradox  is  that  God  absolutely  decreed 
a  conditional  system — a  system,  however,  the  workings  of  which  he  thoroughly 
foreknows. 


252  REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH 

of  his  offenses,  and  believes  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The 
more  obvious  duty  of  repentance  receives  earlier  prominence 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  will  be  first  considered. 

I.  REPENTANCE. 

Of  the  two  words  in  the  New  Testament  for  repenting, 
fisTaiiiXoiiat  is  infrequently  used,  and  signifies  to  feel  an  after- 
care, that  is,  to  change  one's  concern  or  interest,  with  regret 
for  the  earlier  choice.  Meravoiio  and  fi-rd-^uia,  which  occur 
many  times,  mean  a  change  of  mind  about  anything,  in  a 
moral  sense  a  changed  conception,  together  with  contrition 
and  a  different  course  of  life  (see  Cremer's  "  Bib.  Thel.  Lex.," 
sud  voce).  These  latter  words  thus  imply  the  three  elements 
found  in  evangelical  repentance  ;  namely,  a  new  view,  new 
feelings,  and  new  conduct — acts  of  intellect,  of  sensibility, 
and  of  will. 

1.  Repentance  normally  begins  with  a  fresh,  even  a  sur- 
prised recognition  of  disregarded  facts ;  the  penitent  is  con- 
victed "in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judg- 
ment "  (John  1 6  :  8).  Conduct  and  aims  are  now  surveyed 
in  the  light  in  which  God  sees  them.  David  received  a  new 
view  from  Nathan's  parable  (2  Sam.  I2  :  1-7)  ;  the  prodigal 
son  came  to  a  new  view  when  "  he  came  to  himself  "  (Luke 
15  :  17);  new  light  arrested  Saul  of  Tarsus  on  the  road  to 
Damascus  (Acts  9  :  1-9),  and  was  so  important  as  to  be  the 
only  specified  cause  of  the  most  momentous  conversion  in 
the  history  of  the  church. 

2.  Etnotiojt  attends  the  amended  estimate.  It  may  be 
alarm  at  the  recognized  danger  of  punishment,  horror  at  the 
enormity  of  sin,  or  longing  for  righteousness  unattained. 
An  emotionless  repentance  is  abnormal. 

Yet  a  painful  degree  of  fear,  of  self-reproach,  or  of  yearn 


REPENTANCE   AND   FAITH  ^53 

ing  for  righteousness  may  be  fruitlessly,  even  hurtfully, 
suffered  (Matt.  19  :  22  ;  27  :  3-5  ;  2  Cor.  7  :  10).  To  peni- 
tence must  therefore  be  added — 

3.  Amendment  of  life.  Forgiveness  is  promised  to  those 
who  so  deeply  regret  sin  as  to  abandon  it  (Ps.  34:18;  Isa. 
55:7;  Ezek.  33:11;  Mark  1:4;  Luke  1 5  :  7 ;  24  :  47  ; 
Acts  3  :  19;  2  Cor.  7  :  10).  We  have  distinct  assurances 
that  the  divine  compassion  is  moved  by  thorough  repentance 
(Ps    51  :  17  ;  Isa.  66  :  2  ;   i  John  i  :  9). 

Yet  it  must  not  be  imagined  that  forgiveness  is  earned  by 
sorrow.  On  the  contrary,  the  deepest  grief  for  sin  is  possible 
only  to  one  who  has  already  experienced  forgiveness.  It  is 
the  goodness  of  God  which  leads  to  repentance  (Rom  2  :  4). 
"  Repentance  toward  God  "  springs  from  the  same  source  as 
"faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Acts  20  :  21). 

II.    FAITH. 

Faith  appropriates  the  atonement.  The  doctrine  of  faith 
therefore  shows  how  the  atonement  does  its  work.  It  is  the 
key  to  soteriology.  There  is  especial  need  in  our  day  to 
show  that  faith  can  meet  the  demand  for  ethical  results,  with- 
out loosing  our  hold  upon  the  Reformers'  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith. 

I .    The  Nature  of  Evangelical  Faith. 

There  is  no  obscurity  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  TrtVr:?, 
or  faith,  as  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  It  signifies 
trust,  or  firm  confidence  in  its  object.  But  we  cannot 
entrust  ourselves  to  an  unseen  Being  unless  he  seems  real  to 
us.  Nor  can  we  properly  represent  to  ourselves  as  real  a 
Being  of  whose  existence  we  are  not  reasonably  assured. 
Fa'*h,  therefore,  can  be  analyzed  into  three  elements,  the  first 

w 


254  REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH 

of  which,  in  the  synthetic  order  about  to  be  followed,  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  second,  the  first  and  second  indispensable  to 
the  third. 

A.  Faith  is  primarily  a  kind  of  knowledge.  It  is  a  dis- 
cernment of  spiritual  things.  A  purely  intellectual  process 
cannot  deal  with  such  things,  as  it  cannot  with  the  right  and 
beautiful.  And  yet  faith  is  not  credence  without  proof :  for, 
like  the  right  and  the  beautiful,  spiritual  things  become  objects 
of  knowledge  through  the  use  of  an  appropriate  faculty.* 
"Through  faith  we  understand,"   -rziarti  vood/iev  (Heb.  ii  :  3). 

Faith  in  this  primary  sense  is  repeatedly  distinguished  by 
John  from  an  acceptance  of  evidence  addressed  solely  to  the 
intellect.  On  the  evidence  of  his  miracles  the  intellect  of 
many  Jews  accepted  Christ  as  a  "teacher  sent  from  God" 
(John  2  :  23  ;  3:2);  but  Christ  distinguished  this  intellect- 
ual certitude  from  the  faith  which  discerns  spiritual  things,  for 
he  "  did  not  trust  himself  unto  "  those  Jews  (John  2  :  24) ; 
on  the  contrary,  he  demanded  of  one  of  them,  Nicodemus, 
how  he  could  believe  if  he  were  told  of  heavenly  things  (3  : 
12  ;  cf.  4  :  39  with  41,  42,  also  12  :  37-40). 

According  to  Paul,  it  is  the  insight  of  faith  into  spiritual 
realities  that  delivers  conscience  from  bondage  to  formalism 
(Rom.  14  :  I,  17,  22  ;  i  Cor.  8  ;  GaX.,  passim  ;  Col.  2  :  6-23); 
and  to  Timothy  he  asserts  in  memorable  words  that  his  own 
fiiith  amounts  to  knowledge  (2  Tim.  i  :  12,  cf  2  Cor.  4  : 
2-4).     Because  apprehended  only  in  this  way,  Christian  truth 

1  We  cannot  agree  with  Agnostics  that  religion  is  a  matter  of  faith,  not  knowl- 
edge ;  nor  with  Roman  Catholics,  that  faith  is  acceptance  of  truth  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  knowledge  ;  for  faith  is  knowledge  of  spiritual  things  by  an  appro- 
priate faculty,  while  Agnostics  and  Romanists  limit  knowledge  to  intellection.  The 
error  of  many  Disciples  (Campbellites)  is,  contrariwise,  to  limit  faith  to  intel- 
lection. 


REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH  255 

is  often  called  "the  Faith"  (Eph.  4:13;  i  Tim.  3:914: 
I  ;  6:21;  Titus  I  :  13,  14;  2  :  2  ;  Jude  3). 

Although  the  spiritually  minded  alone  can  search  and  know 
"the  deep  things  of  God"  (i  Cor.  2  :  9-16),  the  unregener- 
ate  to  some  degree  exercise  this  element  of  faith  (i  Cor.  14  : 
24,  25).  They  feel  assured  that  God  exists,  and  their  assur- 
ance is  ordinarily  due  not  to  arguments,  but  to  insight  through 
moral  feeling.  And  so  far  they  apprehend  the  existence 
of  God  as  a  spiritual  reality,  not  as  a  merely  provable  fact. 

We  are  not  to  infer  that  this  cognitive  element  in  faith  is 
the  act  of  a  special  faculty.  It  is  the  act  of  one  or  more 
among  several  faculties  ;  namely,  of  reason,  moral  sensibility, 
aesthetic  sensibility,  and  the  affections.  Thus  the  existence 
of  a  Creator  commends  itself  to  the  causal  judgment ;  an 
infinitely  holy  being  is  the  highest  reality  to  conscience ;  the 
idea  of  a  Most  High  is  true  to  the  faculty  which  wonders  and 
worships ;  one  worthy  of  all  love  is  both  demanded  and  rec- 
ognized by  the  heart.  Obviously,  faith  here  apprehends 
what  is  not  cognizable  by  intellection  alone ;  yet  the  intel- 
lect may  reasonably  admit  the  reality  of  knowledge  through 
the  aid  of  other  faculties  as  unhesitating  and  persistent  as 
itself.     In  this  aspect  faith  is  a  "  presentative "  function. 

B.  A  second  element  in  faith  is  a  vivid  '*  representation  " 
to  one's  self  of  those  spiritual  verities  which  are  apprehended 
by  the  first  element  in  faith.  This  is  sometimes  called  "^ 
realizing  sense*'  of  spiritual  things.  It  is  a  religious  use  of 
the  imagination,  an  imaging  not  of  fancies  but  of  facts  al- 
ready verified,  yet  which  without  being  thus  imaged  would 
fail  of  their  proper  effect. 

This  is  the  element  of  faith  defined  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (11  :  i)  as  "assurance  of  things  hoped  for,  convic- 


256  REPENTANCE   AND   FAITH 

tion  of  things  not  seen."  The  entire  chapter  illustrates 
this  element  in  faith  ;  e.  g.,  with  Moses  it  was  a  "  seeing  of 
him  who  is  invisible"  (ver.  27).  It  is  when  invisible  things 
are  clearly  discerned  by  the  mind's  eye  that  "  we  walk  by 
faith,  not  by  sight  "  (2  Cor.  5  :  7),  can  forget  the  things  be- 
hind, and  reach  forth  to  the  things  before  (Phil.  3  :  13),  and 
are  able  to  "  run  .  ,  .  the  race  that  is  set  before  us,  looking 
unto  Jesus"  (Heb.  12  :  i,  2). 

C.  The  spiritual  realities  which  the  Holy  Spirit  enables  us 
both  to  cognize  and  realize  become  possible  objects  of  trust — 
the  third  and  culminating  element  in  faith.  But  this  mean- 
ing of  the  word  is  so  familiar  and  undisputed  in  the  usage 
alike  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  church,  as  to  need  no  illus- 
tration. 

2.    The  Offices  of  Evangelical  Faith. 

These  correspond  to  its  elements. 

(i)  As  faith  is  primarily  an  apprehension  of  spiritual 
things,  it  offers,  to  begin  with,  every  advantage  that  attends 
the  knowledge  of  such  things.  And  as  Christ  is  the  sum  of 
Christian  truth  (John  14  :  6),  faith  first  of  all  apprehends 
what  the  "truth  is  in  Jesus  "  (Eph.  4:21).  Thus  its  primary 
office  is — 

{a)  To  the  penitent  a  necessary  step  toward  "  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord"  (Rom.  10  :  13,  14). 

{b)  To  the  believer  it  is  a  means  of  continual  participation 
in  "  eternal  life,"  as  found  in  knowing  the  only  true  God  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  he  has  sent  (John  17:3,  cf.  26).  Paul 
therefore  might  well  "  account  all  things  to  be  loss  for  the 
excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  "  (Phil.  3  :  8, 
cf.  2  Peter  3  :  18). 


REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH  ^57 

(2.)  The  office  of  faith  as  a  realizing  sense  is  often  very  im- 
pressive : 

A,  To  the  penitent.  Not  only  his  own  sinfulness  and  the 
contrasted  holiness  of  God,  but  also  the  offer  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  his  Saviour  strike  him  as  almost  unheard-of  realities.  In- 
deed, a  lively  idea  of  these  facts  is  his  first  treatment  of  them 
as  real,  and  therefore  his  first  opportunity  to  receive  from 
them  a  due  impression.  This  memorable  experience  of 
the  "inquirer"  it  is  the  office  of  the  religious  use  of  the 
imagination — 

B.  To  render  permanent  for  the  believer.  Faith  as  a  re- 
alizing sense  makes  Jesus  a  constant  companion  and  his  in- 
fluence perennial  (2  Cor.  3:18).  It  thus  provides  the  three 
prime  factors  in  Christian  excellence  : 

[a)  It  keeps  alive  the  highest  sentiments  or  ideals.  These 
it  finds  embodied  in  Christ  himself.  Such  conceptions,  when 
steadily  held  before  the  mind,  become — 

(^)  Powerful  motives  to  action,  and  thus  the  faith  which 
sees  fosters  energy  of  life  (Heb.  12  :  i,  2  ;  i  John  3:3;  5  : 
4).  But  transient  energy  is  easy;  the  most  difficult  attain- 
ment made  by  the  second  element  of  faith  is — 

{c)  Untiring  perseverance.  It  achieves  this  result,  not 
through  extraordinary  effort,  but  by  virtue  of  the  growing 
attractiveness  of  its  objects.  Religion  is  wearisome  to  those 
only  who  give  it  little  thought ;  it  fascinates  such  as  dwell 
upon  its  aims,  especially  when  they  see  these  winningly 
embodied  in  our  Lord  (Phil,  3  :  12-14;  Heb.  11  :  27;  i 
Peter  1:5). 

In  times  of  trial,  perseverance  becomes  patience  for  those 
who  look  unto  Jesus,  precisely  as  he  "  for  the  joy  set  before 
him  endured  the  cross,  despising  shame"  (Heb.  12  :  1-3,  cf. 
2  Cor.  4  :  16-18  ;  James  i  :  3,  4). 


258  REPENTANCE   AND   FAITH 

(3)  But  the  most  characteristic  and  important  offices  of  faith 
are  discharged  by  its  element  of  trust.  These  offices  are  two- 
fold ;  namely,  objective  and  subjective.  In  other  words,  trust 
accepts  good  for  us,  and  works  good  in  us. 

A.  Its  objective  office  is  the  acceptance  of  justification 
through  Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  3  :  26,  28  ;  Gal.  2  :  16;  3  :  24). 

But  trust  is  merely  a  condition,  not  a  ground  of  justifica- 
tion. However  imperative  as  a  duty,  excellent  as  a  virtue,  or 
energetic  as  a  principle  of  conduct  trust  in  God  may  be,  it  is 
not  as  a  good  work  that  faith  justifies  ;  "otherwise,  grace  is 
no  more  grace  "  (Rom.  11  :  6).  To  accept  a  gift,  especially 
to  accept  a  confessedly  undeserved  gift,  is  not  to  assert,  but 
to  disavow  a  claim  (Phil.  3  :  9). 

And  yet,  trust  was  not  arbitrarily  appointed  as  a  condition 
of  justification. 

{a)  It  is  the  only  way  to  accept  a  spiritual  gift.  Indeed,  the 
mind  must  accept  a  material  gift  before  the  hand  closes  upon 
it ;  and  the  mind's  acceptance  is  trust  that  the  gift  is  both 
worth  having  and  within  reach. 

(^)  The  trust  of  the  weak  and  unworthy  is  fitted  to  move 
the  heart  of  God.  The  power  of  such  an  appeal  is  under- 
stood, not  by  one  who  trusts,  but  by  one  who  is  trusted. 
Our  Lord  uses  this  fact  as  an  encouragement  to  prayer 
(Matt.  7  :  7-1 1 ;  Luke  11  :  5-13 ;  18  :  1-8). 

B.  TJie  subjective  office  of  trust  is  to  promote  our  spiritual 
transformation.  The  vigor  with  which  this  office  is  executed 
may  be  understood  from  the  fact  that  what  one  unreservedly 
trusts  in  has  complete  ascendency  over  him.  He  who  trusts 
in  God  belongs  to  God ;  he  who  trusts  in  evil  belongs  to  the 
devil. 


REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH  259 

In  more  particularly  inquiring  how  a  Christian  is  trans- 
formed through  his  trust  in  God,  it  is  important,  at  a  time 
when  forensic  justification  is  decried  and  only  the  ethical 
value  of  faith  conceded,  to  note  that — 

(a)  It  is  precisely  in  appropriating  an  objective  justifica- 
tion that  the  renovating  power  of  trust  first  appears.  To  be 
justified  by  faith  is  to  "have  peace  with  God  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Paul  significantly  adds,  "  through  whom 
we  have  had  our  access  also  by  faith  into  this  grace  in  which 
we  stand"  (Rom.  5  :  i,  2).  To  be  at  peace  with  God  is  to 
feel  one's  self  a  new  creature  in  a  new  world  (2  Cor.  5:17) 
and  facing  a  new  career.  No  longer  bound  to  the  past  by 
conscious  guilt,  the  believer  may  "  reach  forth  to  the  things 
before"  (Phil.  3  :  13). 

(d)  Trust  in  God  claims  novel  privileges.  It  sees  in  every 
gift  from  the  Father  something  allowed,  not  something  pro- 
hibited. All  things  are  ours,  when  we  are  Christ's  (i  Cor. 
3  :  21-23).  W^  trust  in  "God,  who  giveth  us  all  things 
richly  for  enjoyment  "  (i  Tim.  6:17).  Thus  faith  cures  the 
moral  misunderstanding  of  asceticism  (Gal.  4  : 9-1 1  ;  Col.  2  : 
16,  20-22),  and  puts  the  Christian  in  the  only  position  where 
he  can  freely  sacrifice  a  lower  good  for  the  sake  of  rendering 
a  higher  service  (i  Cor.  6:12;  9  :  19  ;  2  Cor.  8  :  8,  9 ;  Phil. 
2  :  5-8). 

(c)  Trust  boldly  claims  the  highest  spiritual  good  (Rom. 
8  :  32) ;  and  what  it  claims  an  active  faith  continually  makes 
its  own.  Joyous  trust  is  more  invigorating  than  painful  self- 
reproach  or  grim  resolution.  To  all  Christians,  as  to  gentle 
Timothy,  the  soundest  exhortation  is,  "  Fight  the  good  fight 
of  faith  "  (i  Tim.  6  :  12,  A.  V.).  It  is  faith  that  overcomes 
the  world  (i  John  5  :  4,  5). 

(d)  Trust  is  the  appropriate  channel  for  divine  aid.     It 


26o  JUSTIFICATION 

looks  to  God  ;  it  lays  hold  upon  him  ;  he  will  not  put  it  to 
shame  (Isa.  49  :  23  ;  Ps.  27  :  14;  Matt.  21  :  22  ;  i  Peter  i  : 
5  ;  James  i  :  6,  7  ;   i  John  5  :  14). 

§  52.  Justification, 
i.  nature  of  justification. 

Justification  is  an  application  of  the  atonement  to  the 
individual  believer.  Therefore  the  doctrine  of  justification 
must  correspond  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  We  have 
seen  that  the  atonement  provides  alike  for  remission  of  sins 
and  for  moral  renewal.     Accordingly — 

Justification  is  the  divine  declaration  that,  the  claims  of 
the  law  having  been  met  for  the  believer,  he  is  relieved  from 
its  condemnation  ;  in  other  words,  he  who  accepts  Christ  is 
himself  accepted  as  though  he  had  not  sinned.  This  is  the 
fruit  of  a  Godward  efficacy  in  the  atonement. 

The  inseparable  manward  result  is  that  the  acquittal  and 
acceptance  of  the  believer  go  into  effect  in  the  renewal  of  his 
nature. 

The  divine  fiat  of  justification  is  one  thing,  and  its  moral 
effect  in  us  is  another ;  but  neither  aspect  of  the  case  must 
be  dissociated  from  the  other.  While  each  must  be  con- 
sidered in  its  turn,  they  should  not  be  thought  of  as  separable 
in  reality. 

II.    EVIDENCE    FOR    JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification  is  a  forensic  term.  The  verb  dtxacdio  means 
to  show  or  to  declare  righteous.  The  former  meaning  is  oc- 
casional, and  not  especially  pertinent  to  our  doctrine  (Luke 
7  :  29 ;  10  :  29  ;  Rom.  3:4;!  Cor.  4:4;!  Tim.  3  :  16) ; 
the  latter  meaning  is  constantly  used  by  Paul  in  the  techni- 
cal sense  of  the  divine  fiat  now  under  consideration.     In  his 


JUSTIFICATION  26l 

epistles,  excepting  the  cases  just  cited,  it  has  no  other  unmis- 
takable meaning.  (See  an  apparent  exception  in  Rom.  6  :  7.) 
duaiwaiq  occurs  but  twice  (Rom.  4  :  25  ;  5  :  18),  and  means  a 
declaring  of  approval.  Juaioj/xa,  in  the  sole  passage  (Rom. 
5  :  16)  in  which  justification  is  meant,  is  the  act  of  judicial 
approval.  Aixatoffuvrj,  righteousness,  used  nearly  one  hundred 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  refers  sometimes  to  righteous- 
ness in  character  and  conduct,  sometimes  to  declared  right- 
eousness, or  justification. 

A  detailed  discussion  of  the  passages  in  which  these  words 
occur  is  impracticable,  and  is  needless.  The  very  substance 
of  the  gospel  is  that  a  believer  is  pronounced  just,  or  righteous, 
solely  on  account  of  the  atonement  which  Christ  has  made 
for  his  sins.  And  this  is  the  easily  recognizable  teaching  of 
numerous  passages  : 

(a)  That  one  may  be  accounted  righteous  on  other  grounds 
than  obedience  to  the  law,  see  Rom.  3  :  28,  "  For  we  reckon 
that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  works  of  law  "  (cf. 
Rom.  3  :  20,  21,  27  ;  4  :  2-5  ;  11  :  6  ;  Gal.  2  :  16,  21  ;  3  :  11). 

(d)  That  he  may  be  pronounced  righteous  notwithstanding 
violations  of  the  law,  see  Rom.  5  :  16,  "The  gift  came  of 
many  trespasses  unto  justification"  (cf.  Rom.  4  :  5,  "Him 
who  justifies  the  ungodly  "  ). 

III.    DIFFICULTIES    IN    JUSTIFICATION. 

This  doctrine  is  challenged  by  two  questions  : 
I.  How  can  God,  even  on  the  ground  of  the  atonement, 
ca//  a  sinner  righteous  ? 

We  reply  that  the  term  "  justify  "  is  figurative.  God  does 
not  actually  pronounce  the  guilty  innocent,  but  he  accepts 
them  as  though  innocent.  This  is  simply  the  familiar  for- 
giveness of  sins  (Rom.  3  :  25  ;  4  :  6-8  ;  8  :  i,  33  ;  Eph.  i  :  7). 


262  JUSTIFICATION 

Forgiveness,  however,  is  more  than  pardon.  Pardon  is  a 
relation  to  the  law  ;  forgiveness  is  a  relation  to  a  person.  To 
be  pardoned  is  to  be  released  from  the  penalties  of  a  broken 
law  ;  to  be  forgiven  is  to  be  released  from  the  condemnation 
of  a  person  injured,  and  to  be  accepted  as  though  one  had 
committed  no  offense.  Among  men  neither  pardon  nor  for- 
giveness implies  the  other  ;  but  with  God  they  are  insepa- 1 
rable.  What  the  law  exacts  he  exacts  ;  what  he  exempts  he 
exempts  according  to  law.  Justification  then  is  an  act  of  per- 
sonal grace  (Rom.  3  :  24  ;  4  :  16  ;  5  :  15-18,  20,  21),  but  it 
is  not  the  less  a  lawful  grace.  "  God  sending  his  own  Son 
,  .  .  for  sin  .  .  .  that  the  requirement  of  the  law  might  be 
fulfilled  in  us  "  (Rom.  8  :  3,  4).  "  Not  being  without  law  to 
God,  but  under  law  to  Christ  "  (i  Cor.  9:21,  cf.  Rom.  3  : 
21,  25,  26;  7  :  6). 

2.  It  will  still  be  demanded,  how  can  God  accept  the  believer 
as  though  he  had  not  sinned  .-• 

The  answer  is  twofold :  first,  as  to  penalties  which  are 
directly  caused  by  God's  displeasure,  Christ  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins  ;  secondly,  the  removal  of  inwrought  penal- 
ties is  provided  for  by  the  way  in  which  justification  goes  into 
effect  with  the  believer. 

IV.    RELATION  TO  REGENERATION. 

Justification  goes  into  effect  manward  by  transforming  the 
nature  of  the  justified.  Thus  it  delivers  him  from  that  bond- 
age to  sin  which  is  the  extreme  subjective  penalty  of  sinning. 
While  no  one  is  justified  on  account  either  of  righteousness 
which  precedes  or  which  will  follow  justification,  it  is  va- 
riously evident  that  justification  takes  effect  in,  and  is  incon- 
ceivable without,  a  new  righteousness  of  the  believer. 

I.  The  extreme  Protestant  view  is  that  justification  is  a 


JUSTIFICATION  263 

Divine  fiat.  But  the  fiat  which  pronounces  a  sinner  just, 
like  every  other  word  of  God,  is  creative,  and  goes  into  effect 
by  making  the  sinner  to  be  what  God  calls  him, 

2.  Justification  is  primarily  forgiveness ;  but  forgiveness 
would  be  futile  if  it  did  not  remove  the  inwrought  as  well  as 
any  imposed  penalties  of  sin  (Ps.  1 30  :  4). 

3.  Justification  includes  adoption  of  the  believer  as  though 
he  had  not  sinned  ;  but  adoption  would  be  a  mockery  if  it  did 
not  involve  deliverance  from  the  wickedness  which  a  holy 
God  abhors. 

4.  The  atonement  is  the  procuring  cause  of  justification  ; 
but  we  have  seen  that  the  Cross  condemns  those  who  persist 
in  sin,  that  it  has  sacrificial  efficacy  for  those  only  whom  it  is 
efficacious  to  transform.  Justification,  or  the  imputing  of 
righteousness,  must  involve  the  imparting  of  righteousness, 
"the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith"  (Phil.  3  :  9). 

5.  Faith  is  the  formal,  conditioning  cause  of  justification  ; 
but  faith  can  no  more  arise  in  an  unrenewed  heart  than  the 
heart  can  be  renewed  while  its  wickedness  is  yet  unpardoned. 
Pardon  and  renewal,  with  faith,  must  take  place  together. 

6.  Certain  perplexing  Scriptures  are  explained  by  the 
fact  that  justification  takes  effect  in  a  moral  change;  for 
example : 

{a)  Our  Saviour's  teaching  that  a  forgiving  spirit  must  rule 
in  him  who  would  be  forgiven  (Matt.  6  :  14,  15  ;  18  :  21-35). 
It  is  not  that  by  forgiving  men  we  earn  forgiveness  from  God, 
but  that  by  refusing  to  forgive  others,  we  make  it  morally  un- 
suitable that  we  should  be  forgiven.  Implacability  and  vin- 
dictiveness  illustrate  to  the  understanding  of  every  one  that 
justification  cannot  go  with  persistence  in  wickedness. 

ip)  The  passage  in  which  James  insists  upon  works  as  a 
ground  of  justification  (2  :  14-26).     James  is  not  here  dis- 


264  JUSTIFICATION 

cussing  the  justification  of  penitent  sinners,  but  of  alleged 
believers  ;  and  of  these  he  says  that  their  faith  is  dead  unless 
they  show  it  by  their  works.  That  is,  they  cannot  be  pro- 
nounced righteous,  unless  their  justification  goes  into  effect 
in  righteousness. 

{c)  Forgiveness  of  sin  is  closely  connected  even  by  Paul 
with  release  from  its  power  in  passages  which  fail  to  draw  at- 
tention only  because  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  is  the  recog- 
nized defender  of  the  claims  of  faith.  But  with  Paul,  to  be  jus- 
tified  is  to  be  "dead  to  sin"  (cf.  Rom.  5  with  6  :  i,  2);  sin 
shall  not  have  dominion  over  us,  because  we  are  "  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace  "  (ver.  14).  That  is  to  say,  a  gra- 
cious deliverance  from  condemnation  by  the  law  involves  be- 
coming "the  servants  of  righteousness"  (ver.  18,  cf.  ver.  22 
and  8  :  4).  In  closing  that  exposition  of  justification  which  is 
the  special  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  affirms 
that  what  avails  for  us  is  "  a  new  creature  "  (Gal.  6  :  14,  i  5) ; 
and  he  says  this  where  we  would  expect  him  to  put  forward 
justification,  thus  offering  renewal  of  life  as  an  equivalent 
fact. 

While,  therefore,  we  reject  the  Roman  Catholic  view  that 
justification  is,  in  effect,  the  making  of  a  man  righteous,  and 
find  only  less  objectionable  the  view  of  some  Arminians  and 
others,  that  we  are  justified  in  anticipation  of  a  righteousness 
yet  to  be  acquired  ;  and  while  we  adhere  to  the  distinctly 
scriptural  teaching  of  the  Reformers,  that  a  believer  is  ad- 
judged righteous  solely  on  account  of  what  Christ  has  vicari- 
ously done  for  him,  we  must  recognize  this  element  of  truth 
in  the  theories  rejected  :  to  wit,  that  justification  and  regen- 
eration are  not  separable  acts,  but  are  two  aspects  of  one  ap- 
plication of  the  atonement.  Justification  contemplates  a  re- 
lation to  the  broken  law ;  regeneration  is  concerned  with  the 


REGENERATION  365 

inward  springs  of  future  obedience  to  the  law.  We  may  say 
either  that  the  atonement,  in  meeting  the  demands  of  the 
law,  imparts  a  new  life ;  or  that,  while  bestowing  a  new  life, 
it  discharges  our  obligations  to  the  law. 

§  53.  Regeneration. 

The  teachings  of  Scripture  as  to  the  change  conventionally 
otyled  Regeneration  are  exposed  to  quite  opposite  perils  :  the 
nature  of  the  change  is  apt  to  be  either  belittled  or  exagger- 
ated. The  sources  of  these  liabilities  will  presently  be  con- 
sidered ;  the  doctrine  is  so  momentous  and  the  danger  to  it 
so  serious  as  to  demand  of  us  a  study  which  shall  be  alike  de- 
vout and  discriminating. 

I.    THE    NATURE    OF    REGENERATION. 

I .    The  Scriptural  Doctrine. 

The  fact  of  regeneration  was  not  first  revealed  in  the  New 
Testament.  That  it  was  known  in  Old  Testament  times  was 
implied  in  the  reproachful  question  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus 
(John  3  :  10,  cf.  Ps.  51  :  10  ;  Ezek.  1 1  :  19,  20  ;  36  :  26.  27) ; 
and  that  the  teaching  of  Scripture  is  confirmed  by  experience 
is  what  our  Lord  meant  in  calling  this  change  an  "  earthly 
thing"  (John  3  :  12). 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  change  the  Bible  affords  but 
little  knowledge,  and  that  little  is  attended  by  virtual  warn- 
ings against  a  fancied  knowledge. 

{a)  Jesus  said  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration 
is  like  the  journeying  of  the  wind,  something  that  cannot  be 
told  (John  3  :  8). 

ip)  The  names  given  to  regeneration  by  biblical  writers  are 
highly  figurative  and,  if  taken  literally,  are  mutually  incom- 
patible.    John  calls  it  a  begetting  (i   John  2  :  29) ;  Jesus, 


266  REGENERATION 

John,  James,  and  Peter  call  it  a  new  birth  (John  3  :  3-8  ;  i  : 
13  ;  James  i  :  18,  R.  V. ;  i  Peter  i  :  23) ;  John  and  Paul  de- 
scribe it  as  a  passing  from  death  unto  life,  a  resurrection  (i 
John  3:14;  Eph.  2  :  5);  Paul  generally  refers  to  it  as  a  re- 
creation (2  Cor.  5:17;  Gal.  6:15;  Eph.  2:10;  4  :  24) ;  but 
he  also  speaks  of  it  as  a  painful  dying  (Gal.  2  :  20  ;  6  :  14), 
and  as  an  emancipation  (Rom.  6  :  18),  so  does  Christ  himself 
(John  8:32,  36) ;  but  Jesus  elsewhere  sets  it  forth  as  an  en- 
lightenment (Matt  1 1  :  25-27),  while  to  James  it  is  in  one  case 
an  implanting  (i  :  21).  It  cannot  be  at  once  a  begetting  and 
a  birth,  a  dying  and  a  resurrection,  a  creation  and  an  emanci- 
pation, an  implanting  and  an  illumination.  It  is  a  change  so 
momentous  that  it  may  be  figuratively  designated  by  any  of 
these  names,  and  so  mysterious  that  it  cannot  be  literally  de- 
scribed by  either  of  them. 

As  to  the  nature  of  regeneration  we  conclude  that  it  is  a 
moral,  not  literally  a  vital,  change ;  that  it  is  a  change  in  the 
quality,  not  the  quantity,  of  the  soul ;  that  it  so  far  corrects 
the  evil  done  by  the  fall  (Col.  3  :  10)  as  to  break  the  power 
of  sin,  and  incline  the  heart  to  love  God  supremely.  The 
known  moral  element  in  regeneration  is  more  momentous 
than  the  unknown  process  of  regeneration ;  the  latter  is  for 
the  sake  of  the  former. 

The  resultant  turning  of  the  heart  to  love  of  God  and  of 
the  life  to  his  service  is  conversion. 

2.  Errors  as  to  the  Nature  of  Regeneration. 

A.  That  of  the  sacramentalists,  who  credit  baptism  with 
the  power  to  regenerate. 

{a)  To  ascribe  such  virtue  to  a  religious  rite  is  to  subject 
Christianity  to  ordinances — a  peculiarity  of  Judaism  from 
which  Christ  set  his  people  free. 


REGENERATION  267 

{b)  To  credit  baptism  with  this  power  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants is  to  deepen  the  mystery  of  regeneration  at  cost  of 
destroying  its  importance ;  an  objection  which  is  supported 
by- 

(c)  The  fact  that  persons  baptized  in  infancy  give  no  sign 
that  a  real  regeneration  was  received  in  that  way. 

B.  That  of  the  annihilationists,  who  hold  either  that  the 
soul  of  man  was  created  mortal,  or  has  become  mortal  through 
the  fall,  and  that  regeneration  alone  imparts  the  immortal 
spirit. 

This  error  must  come  up  again  under  Eschatology ;  but  at 
this  point  it  may  be  objected  to  on  the  grounds  that — 

{a)  It  involves  a  trichotomous  theory  of  the  human  con- 
stitution, 

(b)  The  fall  did  not  take  anything  from  man's  substance, 
and  regeneration  does  not  add  to  the  sum  of  being. 

(c)  The  theory  involves  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  titles 
used  for  regeneration,  an  interpretation  which  we  have  already 
found  to  be  inadmissible. 

C.  That  of  Plymouth  Brethren,  who  hold  that  regeneration 
is  literally  the  creation  of  a  "  new  man,"  who  is  the  real  self 
and  sinless  ;  meanwhile  the  "old  man"  still  exists  in  irreme- 
diable depravity,  and  must  be  destroyed  at  death,  or  at  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  This  view  is  supported  by  a  baldly 
literal  exposition  of  such  texts  as,  "  It  is  no  more  I  that  do  it, 
but  sin  which  dwelleth  in  me  (Rom,  7  :  20);  "I  have  been 
crucified  with  Christ,  and  I  no  longer  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in 
me"  (Gal.  2  :  20,  cf.  6  :  14);  "That  ye  put  away  .  .  .  the 
old  man,  who  waxeth  corrupt  .  .  .  and  put  on  the  new  man, 
who  hath  been  created  after  God  in  righteousness  and  holi- 
ness of  the  truth  "  (Eph.  4  :  22-24,  cf.  Col.  3  :  1-4 ;  2  Peter 
1:4);  "  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because 


268  REGENERATION 

his  seed  abideth  in  him  :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is 
begotten  of  God  "  (i  John  3  :  9). 

{a)  If  we  are  to  understand  Paul  literally  when  he  denies 
that  "the  old  man  "  is  any  longer  the  self,  we  must  take  him 
literally  when  he  denies  that  even  "  the  new  man  "  exists  ;  as, 
"  I  no  longer  live  but  Christ  liveth  in  me "  (Gal.  2  :  20). 
Regeneration  is  thus  annihilation  of  souls  in  the  case  of  be- 
lievers, and  the  re-incarnation  of  Christ  in  their  bodies. 

{b)  If  we  must  take  John  literally  when  he  says  that  a  re- 
generate man  does  not  and  cannot  sin,  we  must  take  him  so 
when  he  expressly  contradicts  this,  and  writes  that  if  any  one 
says  he  is  without  sin,  the  truth  is  not  in  him  (i  John  1:8); 
and  then  we  would  have  to  conclude  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
same  person  cannot  be  both  unable  to  sin  and  bound  to  own 
that  he  sins,  no  one  ever  was  or  ever  will  be  regenerated. 

{c)  The  doctrine  that  the  center  of  personality  has  passed 
from  the  former  soul  to  a  newly  created  essence  which  never 
sins,  whatever  the  old  man  does,  is  morally  dangerous,  and 
psychologically  is  absurd. 

(d)  Especially  objectionable  is  the  fancy  of  Luther,  which 
not  a  few  unguardedly  accept ;  namely,  that  "  the  new  life  " 
is  literally  Christ  living  in  us  and  constituting  part  of  the  self. 
This  is  a  species  of  panchristism  which  should  need  only  to 
be  pointed  out  in  order  to  be  rejected  by  all  who  understand 
the  objections  to  pantheism. 

II.  THE  AGENT  AND  MEANS  OF  REGENERATION. 

I.    The  Agent. 

That  man  does  not  regenerate  himself  is  proved — 
{a)  By  the  inability  of  the  carnal  mind  to  submit  to  the  re- 
quirements of  God  (Rom.  8  :  7),  or  to  accept  "  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God"  (i  Cor.  2  :  14); 


REGENERATION  269 

{b)  By  the  titles  which  the  Scripture  gives  to  regenera- 
tion, all  of  which  are  inappropriate  to  an  effect  produced  by  a 
man  upon  himself ; 

{c)  By  the  ascription  of  regeneration  to  God  (Eph.  2  : 4,  5), 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son  co-acting  (John  5  :  21),  to  Christ 
alone  (Matt.  1 1  :  27-30),  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  3  :  5, 
6  ;  Titus  3  :  5),  These  representations  are  not  contradict- 
ory. Regeneration  proceeds  from  the  will  of  the  Father,  is 
procured  through  the  mediation  of  the  Son,  and  wrought  by 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  may  with  special  pro- 
priety be  referred,  as  it  usually  is,  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
agent  directly  engaged. 

2.    The  Means. 

Many  of  the  stricter  Calvinists  insist  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
regenerates  creatively,  without  the  use  of  means,  because  the 
unregenerate  heart  is  insensible  to  the  truth.  This  is  at  best 
but  a  bold  speculation,  for  it  is  not  supported  by  any  explicit 
statement  of  the  Bible.  There  are  various  grounds  for  pre- 
ferring the  view  that  the  Holy  Spirit  employs  the  truth  as  a 
means  of  changing  the  heart. 

{a)  In  all  other  cases  God  is  believed  to  act  upon  the 
human  mind  in  accordance  with  its  laws  ;  and  its  law  as  to  all 
other  changes  in  human  character  and  conduct  is  that  these 
are  effected  through  the  mediation  of  ideas. 

ib)  The  person,  teachings,  and  sufferings  of  our  Lord  are 
so  well  fitted  to  touch  every  heart,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  con- 
stantly uses  them,  if  we  may  at  all  trust  the  testimony  of  con- 
sciousness, in  changing  the  heart. 

{c)  Paul  testifies  that  "faith  cometh  of  hearing"  (Rom. 
10  :  17),  and  even  tells  the  Corinthians,  "In  Christ  Jesus  I 
begat  you  through  the  gospel "  (i  Cor.  4:15).     Peter  teaches 


270  REGENERATION 

that  we  are  "  born  again  .  .  .  through  the  word  of  God  "  (i 
Peter  i  :  23) ;  and  James  uses  a  similar  expression,  God 
"  brought  us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth  "  (i  :  18). 

III.  NECESSITY    OF    REGENERATION. 

This  may  be  gathered  from  the  facts  that — 

1.  Without  regeneration  the  costly  service  of  Christ  is 
barren  of  advantage.  Except  through  a  moral  transformation 
the  objective  benefit  of  the  atonement  would  remain  unappro- 
priated and  inappropriate  (Gal.  6:15;  John  3  :  5-7).  In- 
deed, unless  the  heart  is  enabled  to  embrace  the  gospel,  it 
proves  "a  savor  from  death  unto  death  "  (  2  Cor.  2  :  16). 

2.  The  fruitfulness  of  the  evil  corrected  and  of  the  good 
bestowed  is  so  immeasurable  as  to  make  a  change  of  heart 
indispensably  necessary  to  man.  "  For  the  mind  of  the  flesh 
is  death,  but  the  mind  of  the  Sphit  is  life  and  peace"  (Rom. 
8  :6). 

IV.  EVIDENCES    OF    REGENERATION. 

These  are  numerous,  and  are  significant  in  proportion  as 
they  correspond  to  the  nature  of  the  change  itself.  Of  this 
kind  are — 

1 .  A  filial  attitude  toward  God. 

(a)  The  "  spirit  of  adoption  "  claims  God  as  Father  (Rom. 
■  8  :  15),  and  animates  us  with  love,  trust,  and  reverence. 

(d)  As  children  we  love  whatever  belongs  to  God,  his 
works,  his  worship,  and  his  name. 

(c)  The  mind  itself  enjoys  fellowship  with  God  (i    John 

1:3). 

2.  A  corresponding  regard  for  Christ.  The  Christian  finds 
it  easy  to  honor  the  Son  equally  with  the  Father  (John  5  : 
23).     The  regenerate  are  drawn  to  Christ  by  an  attraction 


REGENERATION  27I 

which  overleaps  an  unsettled,  even  an  heretical,  Christology 
(I  John  4:15;   5:1;   I  Cor,  12  :  3). 

When  all  other  evidences  fail,  a  Christian  may  still  be  able 
to  look  to  Jesus  with  abiding  faith,  and  to  say,  "  Whether  I 
have  trusted  in  him  before  or  not,  I  trust  him  now." 

3.  "  The  Spirit  /iimse(f  testifies  with  our  spirit  that  we  are 
children  of  God"  (Rom.  8  :  16).  The  witness  of  the  Spirit 
is  not  to  be  found  in  sheer  confidence  that  we  are  regenerated, 
but — 

{a)  The  Spirit  bears  witness  in  us  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
so  doing  testifies  to  our  own  sonship  (i  John  $  :  7-9).  •'  The 
testimony  is  this,  that  God  gave  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this 
life  is  in  his  Son  "  (ver.  11,  12). 

(p)  The  Spirit  animates  us  with  the  characteristic  temper 
and  purpose  of  a  Christian.  "  For  as  many  as  are  /ed  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God  "  (Rom.  8  :  14). 

Such  relations  to  God  imply  also — 

4.  Ethical  fruits  of  regeneration.  Love  which  secures 
obedience  is  the  only  love  that  the  Master  accepts  (John  14  : 
21).  This  well-remembered  test  is  reafiirmed  by  John's  first 
epistle  (3:9;  5  :  3,  4),  and  in  the  pointed  demand  of  James, 
"  Show  me  thy  faith  apart  from  the  works,  and  I  will  show 
thee  the  faith  by  my  works  "(2:1 8). 

In  offering  this  test,  Jesus  specified  one  commandment  as 
peculiarly  his  own,  and  essentially  new  (John  15  :  10-12). 
Hence  a  specially  significant  proof  of  regeneration  is — 

5.  Love  to  the  disciples  of  Christ  (John  13  :  35;  i  John 
3  :  14  ;  4  :  16,  20 ;  cf.  per  con.  5  :  2),  To  love  the  Christlike 
is  to  show  love  for  Christ.  So  willing  is  our  Lord  himself  to 
have  love  to  him  measured  by  love  to  his  brethren,  that  what 
is  done  to  the  least  of  these  is  the  crucial  test  by  which  he 
will  judge  all  nations  (Matt.  25  :  32-46). 


a72  SANCTIFICATION 

Furthermore,  as  a  common  resemblance  to  Christ  is  a  mark 
of  kinship,  mutual  love  among  Christians  is  but  a  kind  of 
family  affection,  instinctive  in  the  household  of  faith.  This 
sense  of  union  in  Christ  constitutes  the  newness  of  the  love 
which  he  requires  (John  1 3  :  34),  notifies  the  world  that  his 
disciples  are  a  class  apart  (John  13:35;  2  Cor.  6  :  14-16), 
and  even  leads  the  world  to  believe  that  God  has  sent  his  Son 
(John  17  :  21,  23). 

6.  Insight  into  spiritual  things.  This  especially  distin- 
guishes a  well-developed  Christian  (i  Cor.  2  : 6-16).  In  many 
cases  general  intelligence  rapidly  develops  under  the  stimulus 
of  the  new  relation  to  God,  and  of  a  new  estimate  concerning 
all  things  (2  Cor.  5:17).  A  spiritual  transformation  which 
extends  its  influence  so  far,  makes  its  own  reality  conspicu- 
ous. 

These  are  the  normal  fruits  and  signs  of  regeneration. 
They  are  always  present,  at  least  in  rudimentary  form  ;  but 
they  develop  and  come  to  view  in  various,  even  abnormal 
proportions.  The  degree  of  fullness  and  symmetry  which 
the  elements  of  a  renewed  life  present  is  dependent  so  largely 
upon  native  peculiarities,  or  upon  early  training,  as  to  demand 
careful  discrimination  and  abundant  charity  from  those  to 
whom  it  may  fall  to  test  the  spiritual  condition  of  other 
persons, 

§   54.    SANCTIFICATION. 

Paul  calls  believers  Kyun,  saints,  partly  because  they  are 
sacred  to  the  service  of  God,  being  consecrated  thereto  by  the 
blood  of  Christ ;  partly  because  they  are  inly  purified  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  the  same  means.  In  the  case  of  persons 
an  objective  dedication  would  be  meaningless,  and  even  hypo- 
critical (Matt.  23  :  27,  28),  if  it  did  not  carry  with  it  fidelity 


SANCTIFICATION  373 

or  righteousness  of  character  and  life.  Correspondently,  the 
noun  dyiaaiidq,  sanctification,  has  either  the  active  meaning, 
not  of  an  objective  setting  apart,  but  of  the  actual  imparta- 
tion  of  holiness  or  moral  purity,  or  else  the  passive  meaning 
of  the  imparted  moral  quality. 

To  theology  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  is  the  doctrine 
of  progress  in  holiness.  Its  problems  are  :  What  attainment 
is  possible  .-'     How  can  that  attainment  be  made  ? 

I.    THE    POSSIBLE    EXTENT    OF    SANCTIFICATION. 

1.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  sanctification  is  a  gradual  pro- 
cess, comparable  in  its  human  aspect  to  growth  (Eph.  4  :  i  5  ;  2 
Peter  3:18)  and  to  transformation  (2  Cor.  3:18),  or  on  its 
divine  side  to  the  finishing  of  a  work  which  God  himself  had 
begun  (Phil,  i  :  6). 

2.  It  must  assuredly  be  perfected  at  death  (Col.  3:4;! 
Thess.  5  :  23,  24;  Heb.  12  :  14,  23;  Jude  24).  Although 
death  is  not,  properly  speaking,  "a  means  of  grace,"  yet  it  is 
a  complete  arrest  and  an  incalculable  change ;  so  that  we  are 
not  surprised  to  read,  "  He  that  hath  died  is  justified  (or 
freed)  from  sin  "  (Rom.  6  :  7).  And  it  is  a  change  which 
brings  those  who  already,  with  all  their  defects,  love  God  su- 
premely, into  his  open  presence  and  under  his  full  influence. 
"■  We  know  that  if  he  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him  ; 
for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is  "  (i  John  3  :  2). 

3.  Perfection  is  not  attained  on  earth.  On  the  one  hand, 
nothing  less  than  righteousness  without  a  flaw  is  required  of 
every  moral  being.  There  is  no  violation  of  law  which  can  be 
exempted  from  condemnation  (Matt.  5:19).  To  be  perfect 
as  our  Heavenly  Father  is  perfect,  to  be  holy  as  the  Lord  our 
God  is  holy  (Matt.  5  :  48  ;  Lev.  11  :  44,  cf.  i  Peter  1:16), 
are  obligations  which  the  Supreme   Being  could  not  relax 


274  SANCTIFICATION 

without  himself  becoming  less  than  perfectly  holy.  On  the 
other  hand,  against  faultlessness  on  earth,  we  have  to  allege : 

{a)  The  statement  of  John  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the 
man  who  pretends  to  be  without  sin  (i  John  i  :  8,  cf.  Ps. 
119  :96). 

{b)  The  confession  of  Paul  that  he  was  not  perfect  (Phil. 
3  :  12,  13),  and  this  in  close  connection  with  a  passage  in 
which  he  implies  that  not  a  few  Philippians  were  perfect  in 
the  sense  of  full  grown  or  mature  (cf.  ver.  i  5  and  i  Cor,  2  : 
6).  While  it  does  not  follow  that  none  can  be  perfect  because 
Paul  was  imperfect,  the  presumption  is  not  light  against  those 
who  claim  to  be  vastly  better  than  he  (2  Tim.  4  :  7,  8).  We 
are  thus  prepared  to  note : 

{c)  Observation  shows  that,  while  there  is  no  approach 
to  faultlessness  at  which  we  must  necessarily  stop  short,  yet 
such  as  pretend  to  be  free  from  sin  are  marked  by  insensi- 
bility to  their  own  faults ;  while  the  saintliest  are  alive,  like 
Paul,  to  their  own  shortcomings. 

II.  THE    PROVISION    FOR    SANCTIFICATION. 

Sanctification  is  in  Christ  (i  Cor.  1:2;  Col.  i  :  28),  ^^the 
Holy  Spirit  (Rom.  15  :  16  ;  i  Cor.  6:11),  through  the  truth 
(John  15  :  3  ;  17  :  17;  Eph.  4  :  11,  12),  upon  faith  (Acts  15  : 
9;  2  Cor.  3  :  18;  Eph.  4:13)- 

The  edifying  of  believers,  "  the  perfecting  of  the  saints," 
is  the  primary  reason  for  establishing  the  church  (Eph.  4  : 
16,  cf.  Rom.  15:2;  I  Thess.  5:11;  Heb.  10  :  24),  for  ap- 
pointing its  ministers  (Eph.  4:11,  12),  and  for  conferring  its 
spiritual  gifts  (i  Cor.  12:7;  14  :  12,  26). 

III.  ERRORS  CONCERNING  SANCTIFICATION. 

Antinomianism  of  some  kind  is  an  element  of  peril  in  every 
unscriptural  theory  of  sanctification.     This  will  appear  in  the 


SANCTIFICATION  275 

special  study  of  those  theories.  But  the  antinomianism  which 
deliberately  proclaimed  that  believers  are  released  from  obli- 
gation to  righteousness  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  justification 
is  a  discharge  from  the  claims  of  the  law,  is  a  doctrine  prac- 
tically extinct.  It  could  not  stand,  for  it  outraged  the  vig- 
orous ethical  sentiment  of  Christianity,  and  virtually  set  aside 
those  Scriptures  which  teach  that  holiness  is  the  fruit  of  the 
Father's  grace  (Rom.  6  :  1-23  ;  7  :  4  ;  i  Cor.  9  :  21),  of  love 
to  the  Son  (John  14  :  i  5,  21,  23  ;  15  :  1-17  ;  i  John  i  :  6;  3  : 
6),  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  indwelling  (Rom.  8  :  2-14,  espe- 
cially ver.  3,  4). 

The  considerations  which  have  been  urged  against  the  ac- 
tuality of  sinless  perfection  in  the  present  life  have  not  pre- 
vented the  somewhat  wide  diffusion  of  errors  with  regard  to 
sanctification,  and  chiefly  for  reasons  which  demand  special 
notice.     Two  such  errors  alone  need  to  be  reviewed. 

I.  Perfectionism. 

Romanism,  holding  that  justification  declares  a  righteous- 
ness infused  from  Christ,  also  teaches  that  the  rigor  of  the 
law  has  been  relaxed  for  the  faithful,  so  that  they  are  able  to 
keep  not  only  the  commands,  but  the  counsels  of  Christ,  thus 
accumulating  works  of  supererogation.  Wesleyans  claim 
that  perfect  love  and  perfect  faith  are  attainable ;  that  they 
constitute  evangelical  obedience  to  the  exclusion  of  sin ;  and 
that,  while  infirmities  may  remain,  these  are  not  reckoned  as 
sins,  but  are  provided  for  in  the  atonement.  A  few  Calvin- 
ists,  like  President  Finney,  argue  that  the  divine  requirement 
has  been  lowered  to  meet  the  capabilities  of  a  race  weakened 
by  the  fall.  The  singular  theory  of  some  Plymouth  Brethren, 
that  personality  is  transferred  from  the  hopelessly  depraved 
"old  man"  to  the  sinless  "new  man,"  also  teaches  that,  while 


276  SANCTIFICATION 

the  "  new  man  "  is  entirely  fitted  for  heaven  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  it  may  be  progressively  sanctified,  that  is,  developed, 
through  "  the  bathing  of  water  in  the  word  "  (Eph.  5  :  26). 

The  more  important  arguments  for  perfectionism  are  :  on 
the  part  of  Calvinists,  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  exact  an  im- 
possible obedience ;  on  the  part  of  Wesleyans,  that  without 
holiness  none  can  enter  heaven,  and  that  all  things  are  pos- 
sible to  faith  ;  on  the  part  of  Plymouth  Brethren,  that  what 
God  has  begotten  does  not  and  cannot  sin. 

But  these  special  arguments  for  perfectionism  lay  it  open 
to  corresponding  objections.  They  involve  misconcep- 
tions of — 

A.  Law.  Perfectionism  regards  the  requirements  of  the 
law  as  subject  to  extension  or  relaxation.  But  this  is  true 
only  of  statutory  or  revealed  law.  Since  the  law  is  itself  a 
transcript  of  the  unalterable  nature  of  God,  it  cannot  acqui- 
esce in  anything  hostile  to  his  nature.  Especially  is  it  to  be 
noted  that  if,  as  Wesleyans  teach  us,  infirmities  are  provided 
for  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  they  must  be  violations  of  law, 
and  under  condemnation  of  God. 

B.  Penalty.  None  enjoy  immunity  through  inability.  Pen- 
alty is  involved  in  the  very  fact  of  being  alien  from  God.  If 
the  alienation  be  so  extreme  as  to  be  helpless,  penalty  is 
so  far  deepened,  not  removed.  Otherwise  the  worst  beings, 
like  Satan,  would  avoid  suffering  from  the  Divine  displeasure 
by  becoming  utterly  abominable  to  him. 

C.  Will.  All  ordinary  forms  of  perfectionism  assume  that 
the  will  is  capable  of  obeying  the  requirements  of  God.  But 
real  freedom  was  lost  in  the  fall.  Holiness  must  restore  free- 
dom, not  be  restored  by  it. 

D.  Faith.  "  All  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believeth  " 
was  spoken  of  miracles,  ought  not  to  be  applied  without  war- 


SANCTIFICATION  277 

rant  to  anything  else,  and  is  unwarrantably  applied  to  prayer 
for  spiritual  good.  No  degree  of  faith  can  at  once  secure 
such  fixity  in  righteousness  as  to  render  watchfulness  and 
prayer  unnecessary ;  no  supreme  effort  of  faith  could  imagin- 
ably secure  on  the  instant  the  conversion  of  all  one's  dearest 
friends,  of  the  whole  human  race,  of  Satan  and  his  hosts. 

E.  Regeneration.  The  objection  to  the  Plymouth  doc- 
trine of  regeneration,  namely,  that  it  rests  on  a  fantastic  liter- 
alness  of  interpretation  and  an  impossible  psychology,  have 
already  been  presented  ;  as  a  theory  of  sanctification  it  is  in- 
volved in  the  special  difficulties  that — 

{a)  It  unites  in  the  same  being  incurable  depravity  and 
stainless  purity. 

(^)  It  denies  that  believers  ought  to  pray  for  forgiveness, 
and  so  sets  aside  the  requirement  that  confession  be  made 
and  forgiveness  sought,  as  well  as  the  many  urgent  exhor- 
tations to  abandon  sin  and  beware  of  a  fall. 

F.  In  general,  while  the  New  Testament  neither  affirms 
nor  denies  the  possibility  of  sinless  perfection,  experience  is 
against  its  practicability. 

2.    The  Higher  Life. 

Not  a  few  who  reject  the  claim  to  sinless  perfection  hold 
that  it  is  possible  to  attain  a  state  of  entire  self-consecration 
and  serene  trust,  which  is  as  distinct  in  species  from  the  ear- 
lier state  of  the  Christian,  as  this  was  from  his  unregenerate 
condition.  This  state  is  called  "the  Higher  Life,"  and  is 
believed  to  be  conferred  by  a  "  second  gift "  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  upon  a  particular  exercise  of  faith.  In  brief,  the 
Higher  Life  is  a  special  state,  reached  by  a  special  process. 

Let  us  gladly  concede  that  the  Christian  may  attain  a 
cloudless  assurance  and  approximate  an  unswerving  fidel- 

Y 


278  SANCTIFICATION 

ity.  Nor  is  it  uncommon  to  witness  a  rapid  and  large  de- 
velopment of  Christian  graces  without  known  preparation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  is  open  to  the  fatal  objections  : 

A.  If  the  highest  practicable  attainments  are  to  be  reached 
only  by  a  process  analogous  to  a  second  regeneration,  the 
Bible  ivould  make  a  fact  of  such  importance  as  plain  as  the 
need  and  the  possibility  of  regeneration  itself.  Unless  the 
Scriptures  distinctly  teach  the  doctrine,  it  is  unwarrantable 
to  hold  it.  But  such  a  warrant  of  Scripture  is  wholly 
wanting. 

B.  The  doctrine  is  really  based  upon  a  vtisinterpretation  of 
experience.  So  great  a  change  in  feeling,  not  less  startling  in 
many  cases  than  regeneration,  seems  to  the  subjects  of  it  to 
require  an  extraordinary  cause. 

{a)  But  moral  changes  as  startling  occur  in  the  unregen- 
erate,  and  might  be  looked  for  sometimes  in  the  regenerate. 

{b)  Happiness  is  not  the  highest  end  ;  and  the  theory  of  a 
special  process  to  gain  it  is  unwarranted  and  mischievous. 

The  Keswick  form  of  the  doctrine  represents  the  disciple 
as  taking  seven  active  preparatory  steps,  and  then  passively 
receiving  an  "  infilling  of  the  Spirit." 

id)  But  in  all  cases,  except  perhaps  Eph.  5:18,  the  Bible 
represents  the  fullness  of  the  Spirit  as  given  for  service. 

{U)  To  promise  for  service  a  mysterious  power  over  men  is 
to  forget  the  diversity  in  spiritual  gifts  (i  Cor.  12:4  f.). 

{c)  A  prescribed  process  for  sanctification  has  been  thor- 
oughly tried,  and  discredited  by  experience. 

{d')  The  Keswick  ideal  is  faulty  in  putting  the  Holy  Spirit 
into  the  place  which  belongs  to  Christ ;  in  making  its  disci- 
ples a  class  apart  from  other  Christians  ;  in  mistaking  aban- 
donment of  all  known  sin  for  deliverance  from  all  sin  ;  and  in 
crying  up  "the  surrendered  life"  instead  of  a  devoted  life. 


perseverance  279 

§  55.   Perseverance. 

Perseverance  is  persistence  until  death  of  the  life  begun  in 
regeneration.  All  truly  regenerate  persons,  being  divinely 
kept  from  apostasy,  persevere  unto  eternal  life.  The  entire 
case  is  stated  by  Peter  :  the  elect  of  the  Father,  being  sancti- 
fied of  the  Spirit  and  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  Christ, 
"  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God,  through  faith,  unto  salvation  " 
(i  Peter  i  :  2-5). 

Regarded  as  the  work  of  God,  perseverance  is  the  comple- 
tion of  sanctification ;  but  since  to  human  observation  it  is 
the  fruit  of  steadfast  faith,  it  is  commonly  called  "  the  final 
perseverance  of  the  saints." 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  this  doctrine  that  experience  can  do 
little  either  to  confirm  or  unsettle  it.  Experience  cannot 
prove  the  doctrine,  because  it  cannot  prove  that  those  who 
die  in  sin  were  never  regenerated  ;  but  neither  can  expe- 
rience disprove  the  doctrine,  because  it  cannot  show  that  any 
who  die  in  sin  were  ever  truly  renewed.  We  must  depend 
upon  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  alone. 

But  the  Bible,  on  the  other  hand,  was  manifestly  written 
with  a  practical  aim,  and  therefore  treats  the  security  for  sal- 
vation in  one  or  another  way  according  as  it  contemplates  the 
divine  or  the  human  factor  in  the  problem. 

I.  It  is  always  humanly  possible,  although  improbable, 
that  a  good  man  may  at  last  succumb  to  temptation,  and 
close  a  holy  life  in  sin.  Certainly  the  end  cannot  be  known 
until  the  end  is  reached.  The  Scriptures  therefore  fittingly 
appeal  to  the  regenerate  as  those  on  whose  "  patient  contin- 
uance in  well-doing  .  .  .  eternal  life  "  depends  (Rom.  2:7); 
bid  "  him  that  thinks  he  stands,  take  heed  lest  he  fall "  (i 


28o  PERSEVERANCE 

Cor.  10  :  12.  See  also  Ezek.  33  :  13  ;  Matt.  10  :  22  ;  John 
15:6;  Rom.  II  :  22\  I  Cor.  9:27;  2  Peter  1:10;  2  : 
20-22  ;  Rev.  ch.  2  and  3) ;  and  solemnly  warn  the  vacil- 
lating against  the  remediless  evil  of  apostasy  from  Christ 
(Heb.  10  :  26-29). 

These  exhortations  and  warnings  do  not  justify  the  doc- 
trinal inference  that  God  will  allow  any  to  perish  whom  he 
has  begotten  again  ;  but  they  imply  that  no  one  may  regard 
himself  as  begotten  of  God  and  safe,  except  while  he  re- 
mains faithful.  Jesus  said  to  those  Jews  who  had  believed 
him,  "  If  ye  abide  in  my  word,  ye  are  truly  my  disciples  " 
(John  8:31).  "  We  have  become  partakers  of  Christ,  if  we 
hold  fast  the  beginning  of  our  confidence  firm  to  the  end  " 
(Heb.  3:14,  cf.  ver.  6) ;  conversely,  to  be  unfaithful  is  a 
sign  that  one  was  never  Christ's.  "  They  went  out  from  us, 
but  they  were  not  of  us  ;  for  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they 
would  have  abode  with  us  ;  but  it  was  in  order  that  they 
might  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  not  all  of  us  "  (i  John 
2  :  19,  27  ;  Heb.  6  :  9). 

2.  What  is  uncertain  to  men  is  certain  to  God.  "  The 
Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his"  (2  Tim.  2  :  19).  That  he 
will  not  allow  his  own  to  perish  is  variously  assured  : 

(a)  By  the  fixed  purpose  of  God  in  election.  "  It  is  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me,"  said  Christ,  "that  of  all  which  he 
hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing"  (John  6  :  39  ;  Rom. 
8  :  29-39  ;  Phil,  i  :  6  ;   i  Thess.  5:912  Thess.  2  :  13). 

(d)  By  the  fidelity  of  God  to  his  invitations.  "  For  the 
gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  not  repented  of  "  (Rom.  1 1  : 
29;   I  Cor.  I  :  8,  9  ;   i  Thess.  5  :  23,  24;  Heb.  10  :  23). 

(c)  By  the  ability  of  God  to  keep  his  children.  "  No 
man,"  said  Jesus,  "  is  able  to  pluck  out  of  my  Father's  hand  " 
(John    10:29).     "The  Lord   is   able   to  make  him   stand" 


PERSEVERANCE  28 1 

(Rom.  14  :  4).  "  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  guard 
that  which  I  have  committed  to  him  unto  that  day,"  is  the 
conviction  of  Paul's  old  age  (2  Tim.  i  :  12,  cf.  i  Peter  i  : 
5  ;  Jude  24). 

(d)  By  the  vantage-ground  of  a  new  relation  to  Christ. 
"  For  if,  being  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  through 
the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall  we 
be  saved  by  his  life"  (Rom.  5  :  10).  This  is  not  merely 
Paul's  assertion  of  final  perseverance,  but  his  argument  for  it. 

How  practical  is  the  interest  of  Scripture  in  this  theme  is 
seen  by  the  fact  that  it  does  not  shrink  from  presenting 
both  phases  of  the  doctrine  together  in  striking  paradox. 
See  for  example,  Phil.  2  :  12,  13  ;  2  Tim.  2  :  19  ;  2  Peter  i  : 
10.  The  disobedient  well  may  doubt  their  regeneration ;  the 
faithful  have  a  proof  and  a  pledge  of  divine  aid  (Phil,  i  :  6). 


PART  V 

eschatology 

§  56,  Conditions  of  the  Inquiry 

Less  certainty  rewards  inquiry  concerning  the  Last 
Things  than  concerning  any  other  department  of  Christian 
truth.  Historically  or  even  physically  attested  data  form  the 
basis  of  theology  proper,  of  anthropology,  and  soteriology. 
Unfulfilled  prophecy  is  practically  the  only  source  of  escha- 
tology.  Science,  which  floods  with  light  objects  immediately 
about  us,  seems,  like  a  torch  in  the  hand,  to  deepen  the  dark- 
ness over  things  far  away.  If  prophecy  too  is  obscure,  this 
is  due  to  recognizable  causes  : 

1.  Some  of  its  topics  lie  beyond  the  range  of  our  expe- 
rience, and  therefore  are  necessarily  incomprehensible.  Such 
topics  are  the  intermediate  state,  the  spiritual  body,  the  final 
coming  of  our  Lord. 

2.  The  obscurity  of  prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah 
was  a  real  and  perhaps  intentional  safeguard  against  impos- 
ture. It  certainly  has  prevented  the  success  of  any  false 
Christ.  Our  Lord  told  his  own  disciples  that  they  could  not 
understand  his  predictions  until  fulfilled,  and  that  these 
should  then  serve  as  his  credentials  (John  13  :  19;  14  :  29; 
16  :  4,  cf.  12  :  16;  13:7;  16  :  12).  The  disastrous  failure 
of  Jewish  interpreters  to  override  this  divine  precaution  in 
the  case  of  predictions  about  the  first  coming  of  the  Messiah, 
warns  us  against  similar  attempts  upon  outstanding  prophecy 
(i  Peter  i  :  10-12  ;  Matt.  24  :  44  ;  cf.  Dan.  12  :  9). 

282 


DEATH  283 

3.  Prophetic  perspective  at  once  simplifies  and  perplexes  the 
interpretation  of  prophecy.  A  single  prediction  covers,  it 
may  be,  many  events  of  the  same  type,  each  of  which  fore- 
casts all  the  rest ;  while  the  last  in  the  series  is  needed  both 
for  the  fulfillment  and  the  complete  understanding  of  the 
original  oracle.  Thus  in  the  Old  Testament  any  momentous 
event  was  styled  a  "coming  of  the  Lord"  (Amos  4  :  12). 
In  the  New  Testament  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the 
twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew  are  apparently  applicable 
to  more  than  one  event. 

4.  Certain  prophecies  are  contingent  upon  what  men  do. 
Nineveh  repented,  and  the  prophecy  against  her  remained 
unfulfilled  (cf.  Jonah  3  :4  with  ver.  10  and  chap.  4).  Jeru- 
salem would  not  receive  her  king,  and  her  house  was  left  unto 
her  desolate  (Matt.  23  :  n,  38,  cf.  Zech.  6:15).  It  is  not 
improbable  that  the  return  of  the  Lord  may  be  delayed  or 
hastened  by  the  church  (Acts  3  :  19,  R.  V.  ;  2  Peter  3:12). 
Prophecies  which  depend  upon  the  will  of  men  cannot  be 
interpreted  with  certainty  in  advance. 

5.  Apparently  it  cannot  be  settled  whether  the  book  of 
Revelation  referred  only  to  the  then  present  and  impending 
relations  of  the  infant  church  with  Pagan  Rome,  or  to  the 
ultimate  destiny  of  the  church  and  the  world,  or  to  both. 

It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  unmistakable  and  the 
realized  aims  of  prophecy  are  reformation  and  encouragement 
(Jer.  44  :  4 ;  John  16  :  33).  Beyond  this,  curiosity  is  baffled 
and  conjecture  is  hazardous. 

§  57.  Death. 

Does  the  soul  die  with  the  body  ?  Dissolution  of  the  body 
seems  to  involve  the  extinction  of  intelligence,  affection,  and 


284  DEATH 

will.  That  it  does  so  has  not,  indeed,  been  believed  in  any 
age  by  any  people  ;  yet  it  is  thought  by  some  to  be  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible.  It  is  said  to  be  involved  in  the  state- 
ment of  Paul  that  God  "only  hath  immortality"  (i  Tim.  6: 
16),  and  in  many  passages  which  speak  of  Christ  as  bestow- 
ing life  upon  believers. 

But  against  the  doctrine  of  conditional  immortality  we 
notice : 

I.    The  testimony  of  Scripture. 

(a)  The  meaning  of  i  Tim.  6  :  16  is  not  that  God  alone  is 
exempt  from  death,  but  that  God  alone  is  self-existent,  essen- 
tially deathless  (0  [j.dvo<;  k'xiov  dOuvafftav),  and  therefore  all  other 
beings  depend  on  him  for  existence.  But  it  does  not  follow 
that  God  will  permit  any  spirit,  either  an  angel  or  the  soul  of 
man,  to  be  extinguished. 

(d)  The  New  Testament  sets  forth  thus  the  relation  of 
Christ  to  death  and  life  :  he  "  abolished  death,  and  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel  "  (2  Tim.  i  : 
10).  Three  meanings  are  here  possible  for  the  word  "life," 
and  correspondent  meanings  for  "death."  By  life  may  be 
meant,  first,  bare  continuance  of  the  soul's  existence ;  sec- 
ondly, human  entirety,  the  union  of  the  soul  and  body  either 
in  the  present  or  in  a  future  state ;  thirdly,  spiritual  life,  the 
holiness  and  happiness  which  befit  a  rational  being. 

The  first  of  these  meanings,  namely,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  is  that  with  which  pagan  philosophy  was  so  seriously 
occupied ;  Christianity  takes  for  granted  the  mere  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  but  emphasizes  both  the  resurrection  and 
spirituality  as  alike  essential  to  its  idea  of  life  for  human 
beings.  Christ  confers  both  the  bodily  and  spiritual  life,  and 
confers  them  together  (John  3  :  36 ;  6  :  40 ;  Rom.  8:11; 


DEATH  285 

Phil.  3  :  9-1 1  ;  Col.  3  :  3,  4).  Correspondingly,  the  death 
which  Christ  abolished  is  pre-eminently  spiritual,  consists  in 
alienation  from  God  and  in  misery,  while  the  resurrection  of 
the  wicked,  though  real,  is  seldom  referred  to.  To  make 
death  consist  in  extinction  of  being  would  thus  not  only  mar 
the  New  Testament's  antithesis  between  life  and  death,  but 
would  be  a  lapse  into  the  low,  paganistic  estimate  of  man, 
which  failed  to  see  in  his  deathless  soul  the  image  of  God. 

2.  The  testimony  of  Consciousness. 

(a)  The  soul  is  consciously  an  indivisible  unit ;  as  such  it 
is  presumably  undecomposable  and  incapable  of  death. 

(d)  The  instinctive  unanimity  with  which  mankind  looks 
for  existence  beyond  the  grave,  an  expectation  marked  in 
simple  savages,  but  most  suitable  to  the  thoughtful  and  the 
holy,  is  of  deep  significance  to  those  who  believe  that  we  are 
creatures  of  One  who  is  both  good  and  wise. 

3.  T/ie  testimony  of  Science. 

(a)  Inasmuch  as  the  vital  principle  is  not  the  product  of 
organism,  but  organism  is  maintained  by  the  vital  princi- 
ple, the  vital  principle  does  not  necessarily  perish  with  the 
organism. 

{b)  The  law  of  continuity  as  regards  energy  is  the  law  of 
convertibility ;  but  the  law  of  convertibility  does  not  hold 
between  mind  and  matter,  therefore  does  not  imply  either 
that  physical  energy  is  convertible  into  vital  principle,  or 
vital  principle  into  physical  energy.  Disregard  of  this  fact 
has  led  to  great  confusion. 

if)  The  law  of  continuity  as  regards  substance  ensures  the 
indestructibility  of  matter,  and  equally  also  of  spirit.  But 
spirit  is  essentially  personal,  therefore  personality  is  essen- 
tially imperishable. 


286  the;  intermediate  state 

§  58.  The  Intermediate  State. 

Between  death  and  the  resurrection,  human  beings  are  in 
a  state  of  incompleteness.  A  body  without  a  soul,  or  a  soul 
without  a  body,  is  an  object  of  natural  horror.  Even  Paul 
desired  "  not   to  be  unclothed,   but  clothed  upon "  (2  Cor. 

5:4). 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  soul  lives  after  its  separa- 
tion from  the  body.  There  is  sufficient  reason  to  believe 
that  it  retains  consciousness,  although  it  has  not  yet  come 
into  possession  of  the  spiritual  body.  Consciousness  in  the 
intermediate  state  is  taught  in  the  case  of — 

1 .  The  wicked,  by  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus 
(Luke  16  :  23-31,  cf.  12  .-4,  5;  Isa.  14  :  9,  10),  and  by 
Peter's  reference  to  "the  spirits  in  prison"  (i  Peter  3  :  19), 
who  are  conscious  and  unhappy,  or  death  would  be  no  more 
a  prison  to  them  than  to  the  righteous. 

2.  In  the  case  of  the  righteous,  the  Lord's  refutation  of  the 
Sadducees  (Matt.  22  :  32)  turns  on  a  proof  from  Exod.  3  :  6 
that  the  spirits  of  the  holy  dead  are  conscious  before  the 
resurrection  ;  that  is,  they  are  in  such  a  state  that  God  can 
be  God  to  them.  The  penitent  thief  was  assured  that,  not  in 
the  uncertain  future  when  the  Lord  should  come  into  his 
kingdom,  but  that  very  day  he  should  be  with  Christ  where 
the  holy  are  (Luke  23  :  42,  43,  cf.  2  Cor.  12:4;  Rev.  2  :  7). 
For  Paul  to  be  "absent  from  the  body"  was  to  be  "at 
home  with  the  Lord "  (2  Cor.  5:8);  and  the  "  strait,"  of 
which  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians,  was  between  the  conviction 
that  "to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  your  sake," 
and  his  "desire  to  depart,"  not  that  he  might  pass  unto 
unconsciousness,  but  "to  be  with  Christ"  (Phil,  i  :  23,  24). 
Perhaps  the  most  explicit  declaration  that  the  pious  dead  are 


THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST  287 

conscious  and  happy  is  found  in  the  lofty  assurance  that  we 
"  are  come  to  .  .  .  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the 
first  born  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven,  .  .  .  and  to  the  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect"  (Heb.  12  :  22,  23). 

Theologians  who  do  not  adhere  closely  to  the  scriptural 
teaching  in  eschatology,  have  inferred  with  some  show  of 
reason  that  the  conscious  spirit,  while  divested  of  its  organ, 
the  body,  will  be  shut  out  from  free  relations  to  things,  and 
shut  in  to  the  subjects  of  reflection  which  it  finds  in  itself 
and  in  memory.  But  this  is  little  more  than  a  conjecture. 
We  do  not  know  enough  about  the  mode  of  life  which  is 
possible  to  a  disembodied  human  soul  unreservedly  to  accept 
or  to  deny  such  a  conjecture.  If  we  may  infer  from  the  rela- 
tions of  the  angels  what  is  possible  to  bodiless  souls  of  men, 
capacity  for  external  relations  is  entirely  probable  in  the  in- 
termediate state, 

§  59.  The  Second  Coming  of  Christ. 

i.  the  advent. 

It  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  and  perhaps 
essential  to  the  complete  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy,  that  Christ  will  return  in  heavenly  glory  to  the 
scene  of  his  earthly  humiliation. 

His  advent  will  be  bodily  (Acts  i  :  11),  visible  (Matt.  24  : 
30  ;  Titus  2:13),  even  audible  (i  Thess.  4  :  16),  and,  although 
not  without  premonitory  signs  (Matt.  24  :  29,  30),  it  will  be 
sudden  (Matt.  24  :  37-44  ;  Luke  12  :  35-40). 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  this  event  must  be  preceded  by 
a  proclamation  of  the  gospel  in  all  lands  (Mark  13  :  10),  by  a 
falling  away  of  nominal  Christians  (2  Thess.  2  :  3),  and  by  a 


288  THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST 

revelation  of  Satan's  power,  possibly  in  the  domination  of  a 
personal  antichrist  (2  Thess.  2  :  8,  9  ;   i  John  2  :  18). 

The  final  coming  of  our  Lord  will  prove  to  be  not  only  an 
epiphany  (2  Thess.  i  :  10),  but  the  overthrow  of  his  enemies 
(2  Thess.  I  :  8,  9),  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  and  the 
consummation  of  all  things  (Matt.  19  :  28  ;  Acts  3:21;  Rom. 
8  :  19-23;  2  Peter  3  :  12,  13). 

II,    RELATION    OF    THE    ADVENT    TO    THE    MILLENNIUM. 

Whether  the  second  coming  will  precede  or  will  follow  a 
prolonged  period  of  righteousness  and  peace  known  as  the 
Millennium,  was  a  point  in  dispute  with  the  post-apostolic 
Fathers,  and  has  been  more  or  less  under  discussion  ever 
since  their  day. 

1.  The  Rival  Opinions. 

(a)  Premillenarians  contend  that  the  righteous  shall  rise 
•*  from  the  dead  "  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  reign  with 
him  upon  the  earth  throughout  the  millennium  ;  that  the 
general  resurrection  will  occur  at  the  close  of  the  millennial 
period,  and  be  followed  at  once  by  the  final  judgment,  unless, 
as  some  hold,  the  millennium  itself  is  a  long  judgment  day. 

(d)  Postmillenarians  generally  look  for  the  conversion  of 
the  world  as  a  result  of  the  gradual  spread  of  the  gospel ; 
hold  to  but  one  resurrection  ;  maintain  that  it  will  attend  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  ;  will  take  place  at  the  close  of  the 
millennium,  if  any  ;  and  be  immediately  followed  by  the  last 
judgment,  and  the  renewal  of  earth  and  the  heavens. 

2.  T/te  contrasted  Histories. 

(a)  In  the  first  age  of  the  church,  until  the  Apocalypse  had 
become  current,  the  last  day  was  widely  looked  for ;  there- 


THE   SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST  289 

after,  up  to  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  a  premillennial  reign 
was  expected  soon,  notably  by  Montanists  ;  from  Origen  until 
the  close  of  the  first  thousand  years  of  our  era,  chiliasm 
was  condemned  ;  but  belief  in  a  millennium  revived  in  that 
dark  and  disordered  period,  was  rife  until  a  thousand  years 
had  elapsed  from  the  reign  of  Constantine,  and  was  enthusi- 
astically preached  to  the  crusaders,  who  regarded  Mohammed 
as  antichrist.  Premillennialism  has  appeared  in  times  of  com- 
motion in  the  world,  of  corruption  in  the  church,  or  of  op- 
pression by  either.  At  the  Reformation  it  inspired  the  mad  An- 
abaptists of  Munster,  and  in  the  next  century  the  Fifth  Mon- 
archy men  among  English  Puritans.  In  the  United  States 
William  Miller  began  in  1833  to  preach  the  speedy  coming 
of  the  Lord,  and  founded  the  sect  of  Second  Adventists  ; 
here  too,  premillenarianism  has  furnished  a  plea  for  the 
strangely  contrasted  fanaticisms  of  the  Shakers  and  Mormons. 

Extravagance  of  opinion  and  disorder  of  conduct  have  so 
commonly  attended  the  premillenarian  doctrine  as  to  account 
in  part  for  its  general  condemnation  ;  but  in  recent  years  it 
has  found  advocates  among  sober-minded  and  devout  exegetes 
of  Germany,  England,  and  America.  It  is  often  marked  by 
zeal  for  a  peculiar  form  of  the  missionary  enterprise  :  its  mes- 
sengers hasten  from  village  to  village,  announcing  the  gospel, 
but  not  delaying  to  make  converts,  still  less  to  train  them. 
It  is  believed  that,  by  "  witnessing  for  Christ "  to  all 
peoples,  they  hasten  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  by  which  alone 
the  world  can  be  converted. 

(b)  Except  during  limited  periods,  for  instance  from  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
and  from  the  tenth  to  the  fourteenth,  postmillenarianism  has 
been  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the  church.  Since  it  ascribes 
the  future  triumphs  of  Christ  to  the  agencies  now  employed. 


290  THE  SECOND  COMING   OF  CHRIST 

it  is  congenial  to  the  temper  of  the  church  in  times  of  real 
or  fancied  prosperity. 

3 .    The  counter  A  rguntents. 

A.  The  chief  arguments  for  a  premillennial  advent  are : 
Rev.  20  :  I -10  obviously  teaches  that  the  Lord  will  come  and 
the  holy  rise  at  the  opening  of  the  thousand  years ;  if  he  is 
not  to  come  until  the  close  of  the  millennium,  we  cannot  ful- 
fill his  command  to  be  always  watching  for  his  advent  (Matt. 
24  :  42  ;  25  :  13  ;  Mark  13  :  32-37  ;  i  Cor.  1:7;!  Thess. 
5:2;  Titus  2  :  13);  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
concerning  a  literal  kingdom  of  Christ  upon  earth,  and  the 
strong  Messianic  anticipations  of  the  apostles,  would  not  be 
fulfilled  by  a  postmillennial  advent ;  the  New  Testament  does 
not  promise  the  conversion  of  the  world  under  the  present 
dispensation,  but  forecasts  a  wide  growth  and  general  decay 
of  the  church.  It  will  be  seen  that  these  arguments  are  ex- 
clusively exegetical. 

B.  The  arguments  for  postmillennialism  are  both  exegeti- 
cal and  theological. 

{a)  On  exegetical  grounds  it  is  urged  :  that  the  general 
tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  a  single 
passage  in  an  obscure  book  (Rev.  20  :  i-io),  is  to  the  effect 
that  there  will  be  but  one  resurrection  (John  5  :  28,  29;  Acts 
24  :  I  5),  and  that  Christ  will  visibly  re-appear  only  to  close 
the  history  of  the  earth  and  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  man- 
kind ;  that  Rev.  20  foretells  the  resurrection,  not  of  all  the 
righteous,  but  of  the  martyrs  only,  and  that  the  rising  and 
reigning  of  the  martyrs  must  refer  to  the  reanimation  of  the 
church  by  their  spirit,  as  Christ  said  that  Elijah  had  already 
come  (Matt.  17  :  12),  because  John  the  Baptist  had  appeared 
"in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah"  (Luke  i  :  17,  cf.  Ezek. 


The;  second  coming  of  chrisT  291 

37  :  1-14) ;  that  the  exhortation  to  expect  momentarily  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  is  fulfilled  by  those  who  are  constantly 
in  readiness  for  manifestations  of  his  spiritual  power,  for  his 
coming  to  us  at  death,  or  in  final  judgment ;  that  it  is  the 
day  of  final  destruction  which  "  will  come  as  a  thief  "  (2  Peter 
3  :  10),  and  that  the  regeneration  of  the  earth  which  attends 
his  coming  is  to  follow  the  last  judgment  and  final  catastrophe 
(2  Peter  3  :  11-13);  finally,  that  when  the  last  enemy  has 
been  destroyed  by  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  Christ  will 
at  once  deliver  up  the  kingdom,  and  therefore  cannot  reign  on 
earth  after  the  saints  arise  (i  Cor.  15  :  24-28). 

(b)  On  theological  grounds  the  objections  to  Chiliasm  are : 
that  it  disparages  the  gospel  by  teaching  that  Christ  can  pre- 
vail only  by  presenting  himself  again  to  the  senses ;  that  it 
makes  his  kingdom  a  kingdom  of  this  world  (John  18  :  36), 
the  weapons  of  its  warfare  carnal,  and  sets  it  wrestling  against 
flesh  and  blood  (2  Cor.  10  : 4  ;  Eph.  6:12);  finally,  it  is  irrec- 
oncilable with  the  fact  that,  so  long  as  we  are  in  the  flesh, 
it  will  continue  expedient  for  us  that  our  Lord's  bodily  pres- 
ence should  be  exchanged  for  his  spiritual  presence  through 
the  mediation  of  the  Comforter  (John   16  17). 

4.    The  suspended  Verdict. 

As  to  the  matters  so  long  in  debate  we  conclude : 
(a)  Neither  party  has  made  out  its  case.     The  conditions 
of  eschatological  inquiry,  emphasized  by  the  pitiful  failures 
to  override  them,  forbid  the  hope  of  understanding  in  ad- 
vance prophecies  all  but  contradictory  in  terms. 

{b)  The  signs  of  the  times,  which  so  often  seem  to  por- 
tend the  speedy  manifestation  of  the  Lord,  may  actually 
have  that  significance,  and  yet  the  impending  event  prove 
to  be  only  one  of  a  series,  the  last  member  of  which  cannot 


292  THE   RESURRECTION 

be  distinguished  until  it  arrives.  Thus,  as  John  said,  that 
"even  now  have  there  arisen  many  antichrists"  (i  John 
2  :  i8,  cf.  4  :  3),  so  since  that  day  any  conspicuous  opponent 
of  Christ  may  be  a  prophesied  antichrist,  and  yet  not  the 
final  embodiment  of  Satan's  rage. 

(c)  We  may  feel  assured  that  Christ  will  come  and  fulfill 
the  prayers  of  his  church.  Meantime  the  duty  of  the  faith- 
ful is  to  be  "  like  unto  men  waiting  for  their  Lord  "  (Luke 
12  :  36). 

§  60.  The  Resurrection. 

i,  the  scriptural  teaching. 

1 .  Fact  of  the  Resurrection. 

At  the  final  coming  of  Christ  the  dead  and  the  living  (i 
Cor.  15  :  51-53)  will  be  invested  with  spiritual  bodies, 

2.  Subjects  of  the  Resurrection. 

The  reanimation  of  the  body  is  in  nearly  all  cases  repre- 
sented by  the  New  Testament  as  the  privilege  of  the  good. 
This  is  first  because  it  completes  the  victory  over  death,  but 
death  must  remain  as  the  wages  of  sin  (Rom.  6  :  23);  sec- 
ondly, because  it  is  secured  by  Christ  (Rom.  6  :  5  ;  i  Cor. 
I  5  :  20-23  ;  2  Cor.  4:14;  i  Thess.  4  :  14),  but  Christ  assures 
no  benefits  to  those  who  finally  reject  him  (John  3:  18); 
thirdly,  because  our  mortal  bodies  shall  be  quickened  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  us  (Rom.  8  :  11). 

In  three  passages,  however,  the  New  Testament  teaches 
that  the  wicked  also  shall  rise  (John  5  :  28,  29 ;  Acts  24  :  1 5  ; 
Rev.  20  :  13,  cf.  Dan.  12:2). 

3.  Nature  of  the  Resurrection-body. 

(a)  The  future    body  will  not  in  all  respects  be  identical 


THE   RESURRECTION  393 

with  the  present  body.     "  Thou  sowest  not  that  body  which 
shall  be"  (i  Cor.  15  :  37).     Yet  it  shall  be — 

(b)  Organically  connected  with  the  present  body  ;  "to  each 
seed  a  body  of  its  own  "  (ver.  38). 

{c)  The  connection  is  to  be  more  than  organic  ;  it  is  in 
some  respects  one  of  identity.  Neither  Enoch,  Elijah,  nor 
our  Lord  laid  aside  his  body  ;  their  bodies  were  changed,  as 
will  be  the  case  with  the  saints  who  are  alive  when  the  Lord 
returns  (i  Cor.  15  :  51). 

{d)  The  resurrection  body  will  be  spiritual.  "  It  is  sown 
a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body"  (i  Cor.  15  :  44). 
The  name  "spiritual  body"  must  be  interpreted  with  cau- 
tion. It  assures  us  that  the  future  body  will  conform  to  the 
nature  of  the  spirit,  and  be  its  perfect  instrument,  and  there- 
fore incorruptible  (i  Cor.  15  :  42).  But  if  we  seek  to  pene- 
trate farther  into  its  nature,  we  are  at  once  baffled  by  the 
facts : 

(aa)  "Spiritual  body"  taken  literally  involves  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms.  Spirit  and  body  have  no  property  in  common. 
Indeed,  the  spirit  which  has  only  spirit  for  its  body,  has  no 
body  at  all.     Psychical  body  does  not  consist  of  psyche. 

(dd)  The  condition  of  our  Lord's  body  during  the  forty 
days  between  the  resurrection  and  ascension  is  not  well 
enough  understood  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  body. 
If  he  retained  the  natural  body,  no  information  is  afforded  as 
to  the  spiritual  body ;  and  if  he  had  the  spiritual  body,  mis 
leading  miracles  repeatedly  occurred.  Thus  he  bade  his  dis 
ciples  notice  that  he  had  flesh  and  bones  (Luke  24  :  39) ;  but 
"flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (i  Cor. 
1 5  :  50),  and  so  far  his  condition  would  invite  error  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  spiritual  body.  Again,  he  ate  in  their  presence 
(Luke  24  :  41-43) ;  but  food  implies  bodily  waste. 


294  '^^E   RESURRECTION 

Apparently,  the  period  between  the  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion was  one  of  transition,  its  processes  suspended  processes, 
and  its  phenomena  characteristic  both  of  the  natural  and  the 
spiritual  bodies.  We  know  too  little  of  our  Lord's  body  dur- 
ing the  forty  days  to  justify  an  inference  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  spiritual  body. 

It  is  remarkable  that  a  doctrine  which  makes  immortality  , 
easily  conceivable  should  itself  prove  especially  perplexing ;  '^• 
but  no  tenable  theory  of  the  resurrection  has  been  proposed. 

II.    THEORIES    OF    THE    RESURRECTION. 

I .  That  the  substance  of  the  spiritual  body  will  be  the  same 
as  that  of  the  natural  body,  except  that  it  will  be  incorrupti- 
ble (i  Cor.  15  :  42,  53).  Until  comparatively  recent  times 
this  theory  was  identified  by  friends  and  foes  with  the  fact  of 
a  resurrection.  Curious  speculations  were  indulged  on  the 
points  involved.  Tertullian  thought  that  sufficient  material 
to  equip  a  spiritual  body  would  be  found  in  the  indestructible 
teeth.  Augustine  argued  that  it  would  contain  all  that  had 
ever  been  part  of  the  natural  body,  hair-clippings,  nail-parings, 
and  the  like.  Or,  according  to  Aquinas,  it  would  retain  just 
so  much  material,  and  so  many  members  as  it  possessed  at 
death. 

Sufficient  objections  to  this  venerable  fancy  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

(a)  In  the  ceaseless  round  of  decomposition  and  recomposi- 
tion  between  the  animal  and  the  vegetable  kingdoms,  it  is 
entirely  probable  that  successive  human  bodies  contain  at 
death  the  same  particles  of  matter. 

{b)  The  notion  that  the  same  materials  can  be  at  one  time 
corruptible,  at  another  incorruptible,  involves  the  speculative 
fancy  on   which   the  doctrine  of   transubstantiation    rests ; 


THE  RESURRECTION  295 

namely,  the  separability  of  essence  and  accidents — a  philos- 
ophy which  has  no  support  in  known  facts. 

(c)  Paul  seems  to  teach  that  the  present  and  the  future 
bodies  are  not  identical  in  material :  "  Thou  sowest  not  the 
body  that  shall  be"  (i  Cor,  15  :  37). 

2.  The  rationalistic  notion  that  the  spirits  of  the  dead  shall 
arise  for  judgment,  and  afterward  be  remanded  bodiless  to 
their  final  estate,  finds  no  scriptural  support,  at  least  as  re- 
gards the  righteous. 

3.  The  theory  that  the  soul  already  possesses,  or  receives 
immediately  at  death,  an  "  enswathement "  of  miaterials  so  ten- 
uous and  ethereal  as  to  be  insusceptible  of  decay.  The  resur- 
rection is  thus  immediate,  and  n6t  future.  Two  elements  in 
this  theory  require  notice  : 

A.  As  to  time  of  receiving  the  spiritual  body,  that  it  is 
received  at  death  is  thought  to  be  supported  by  the  statements 
of  Paul  that  "  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle  be  dis- 
solved, we  have  a  building  from  God,  a  house  not  made  with 
hands,  eternal,  in  the  heavens"  (2  Cor.  5:1);  and  that  he 
did  not  wish  to  "be  unclothed,  but  .  .  .  would  be  clothed 
upon,  that  what  is  mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of  life"  (ver. 
4).  This  scriptural  evidence  is  reinforced  by  the  use  of  the 
brain  in  all  our  mental  activities.     But  it  must  be  objected  : 

{(i)  That  the  resurrection  is  connected  by  Scripture  with  the 
future  coming  of  our  Lord  (i  Cor.  15  :  23  ;   i  Thess.  4  :  16) ; 

{b^  That  the  full  joy  of  the  saints  is  correspondingly  de- 
ferred (Col.  3  :  4 ;  2  Tim.  4:8;!  Peter  5:4;!  John 
3:2); 

{c)  That  the  passage  quoted  in  support  of  an  immediate  as- 
sumption of  the  spiritual  body  does  not  necessarily  mean 
more  than  that  the  spiritual  body  belongs  to  our  heavenly 
and  eternal  estate ;  whereas,  this  very  passage  intimates  that 


296  THE  RESURRECTION 

to  be  "absent  from  the  body"  is  to  find  a  compensation,  not 
in  the  immediate  assumption  of  a  better  body,  but  in  being 
"at  home  with  the  Lord"  (2  Cor.  5  :  8). 

{d)  If  a  physical  organism  is  necessary  to  the  operations  of 
the  mind,  bodies  would  seem  to  be  indispensable  to  the 
angels,  and  even  to  the  Deity. 

B.  As  to  substance  of  the  spiritual  body,  objections  to  a 
body  composed  of  ether  are  : 

{a)  The  ether  is  a  hypothetical  substance,  the  existence  of 
which  is  assumed  because  some  medium  is  necessary  to  con- 
vey the  vibrations  of  heat  and  light  unhindered  through  space. 
But  a  substance  which  does  not  arrest  motion,  cannot  accu- 
mulate energy.  An  ethereal  body  could  not  store  energy, 
and — 

(b)  It  could  not  release  energy.  According  to  the  doctrine 
of  correlation  every  exhibition  of  energy  is  secured  through 
disintegration  of  material.  A  spiritual  body  too  ethereal  to 
decay  would  be  too  ethereal  to  use. 

4.  Theory  that  the  organific  power  of  the  soul,  which 
maintains  the  identity  of  the  body  through  ceaseless  and 
complete  changes  of  its  materials,  will  at  the  resurrection 
organize  about  itself  the  materials  which  constitute  a  spiritual 
body. 

But  this  theory  overlooks  that  the  organific  process  is  a 
process  of  nutrition,  and  is  carried  on  only  by  means  of  organs 
already  in  possession.  No  light  is  thus  thrown  upon  the  re- 
sumption of  a  body  by  a  disembodied  soul. 

The  facts  appealed  to  assure  us,  however,  that  the  body, 
when  resumed,  will  be  recognizably  the  same  as  at  present. 

III.    CONCLUSIONS    FROM    THEORIES. 

I.  It  \s  a  safeguard  to  belief  in  the  resurrection  that  we 


THE   LAST  JUDGMENT  297 

hold  no  theory  concerning  it.  The  attacks  upon  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  have  been  attacks  upon  pretended  explana- 
tions of  the  fact. 

2.  It  is  a  mark  of  exaltation  in  the  spiritual  body  that 
its  nature  cannot  be  understood.  Paul's  account  of  its  ad- 
vantages contradicts  present  experience,  because  what  he 
affirms  far  transcends  experience  (i  Cor.  15  142-44;  Phil. 
3  :  21).  The  resurrection  could  not  be  explained  without 
degrading  it.  We  ought  to  be  satisfied  although  "  it  was 
never  yet  manifested  what  we  shall  be,"  since  "we  know  that 
if  he  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him  ;  because  we  shall 
see  him  as  he  is  "  (i  John  3  :  2). 

§  61.  The  Last  Judgment. 

1.  The  event. 

At  the  general  resurrection  the  entire  fallen  race  of  man- 
kind QA?lXX.  25  :  31-46  ;  Acts  17:31;  Rom.  14  :  12  ;  2  Cor. 
5  :  10;  Heb.  9  :  27  ;  Rev.  20  :  12),  together  with  the  fallen 
angels  (2  Peter  2:4;  Jude  6,  cf.  Matt.  8  :  29  ;  i  Cor.  6  :  3), 
shall  be  assembled  for  judgment  and  the  award  of  their  final 
estate. 

2.  TJie  Judge. 

The  judge  will  be  the  Son  of  Man  (John  5  :  22,  27  ;  Acts 
1 7  :  3 1  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  i o  ;  2  Tim.  4:1).  It  is  fitting  that  he  who 
is  at  once  the  Saviour  and  the  Lord  of  men  should  hold  the 
office  of  Judge  (John  5  :  22,  23).  The  experience  of  their 
lot  which  made  him  "  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest " 
(Heb.  2  :  17),  is  assurance  that  he  will  be  a  competent  as  well 
as  a  merciful  judge. 

3.  The  procedure. 

The  judgment  will  not  be  a  prolonged  trial,  but  an  imm$- 


298  THE   LAST  JUDGMENT 

diate  verdict  (Matt.  25  :  32,  34,  41).  The  Judge  will  not 
need  to  make  inquisition,  and  the  risen  dead  at  least  will  al- 
ready have  had  a  foretaste  of  their  eternal  state. 

4.    TJie  grounds  of  judgment. 

Probation  having  ended,  men  shall  be  judged  according  to 
its  results,  that  is,  according  to  their  character  as  fixed  and 
shown  by  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  (Eccl.  12  :  14;  Matt. 
12  :  36,  37  ;  Rom.  2  :  6-16  ;  i  Cor.  4:512  Cor.  5  :  10 ; 
Rev.  20  :  12). 

The  relation  of  men  to  Christ  shall  then  be  found,  what  it 
has  ever  been,  the  all-inclusive  reality. 

(a)  He  that  believes  in  Christ  receives  remission  of  sins 
(Col.  I  :  14);  "Cometh  not  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed 
out  of  death  into  life  "  (John  5  :  24) ;  does  "  the  work  of 
God"  (John  6  :  29)  ;  is  "found  in  him  .  .  .  having  .  .  .  the 
righteousness  which  is  from  God  by  faith  "  (Phil.  3:9);  and, 
abiding  in  him,  "  will  not  be  ashamed  before  him  at  his  com- 
ing" (I  John  2  :  28). 

(b)  The  wicked  shall  be  condemned  "because  he  hath  not 
believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God" 
(John  3  :  18).  During  his  earthly  career  Christ  was  a  touch- 
stone (John  3  :  19-21  ;  7:7',  8  :  42  ;  9  :  39)  ;  and  even 
those  who  have  never  heard  his  name  will  at  the  last  day  rec- 
ognize in  him  "the  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man" 
(John  I  :  9),  but  which  they  had  refused  to  follow.  This  is 
because  God's  relations  to  the  world  are  through  the  Son  ;  so 
that  what  the  Son  of  God  is  to  men  shows  what  God  is  to 
them,  and  what  they  are  in  themselves. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  consider  the  relation  to  Christ  of 
the  evil  or  the  good,  there  is  no  incongruity  between  salva- 
tion by  faith  and  judgment  by  works. 


THE  FINAL  STATE  299 

§  62.  The  Final  State, 
i.  of  the  wicked. 

1.  Eternal  punishment. 

Condemned  at  the  last  judgment,  the  wicked  "go  away 
into  eternal  punishment''  (Matt.  25  :  46,  cf.  Dan.  12  :  2; 
Mark  9  :  43,  44 ;  Luke  16  :  26 ;  John  3  :  36 ;  2  Thess.  i  : 
7-9;  Rev.  14  :  II  ;  20  :  10). 

2.  Its  sources. 

As  sin  does  violence  to  the  natures  alike  of  God  and  man, 
both  co-act  in  punishing  it.  The  reproaches  of  conscience 
deepen  into  remorse,  and  the  displeasure  of  God  cannot  be 
inoperative.  The  displeasure  of  a  man  of  strong  and  ele- 
vated character  is  formidable  to  an  offender ;  and  that 
of  God  must  be  appalling.  "  Who  may  abide  the  day  of  his 
coming  }  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ?  "  (Mai.  3: 
2  ;  Rev.  6  :  15-17).  If  God  does  anything  for  the  good,  he 
may  do  something  against  the  wicked  (Matt.  22  :  13). 

3.  Its  nature. 

This  will  necessarily  include  remorse,  and  naturally  pro- 
gressive degradation. 

What  physical  suffering  the  lost  may  have  to  bear  we  can- 
not foresee ;  but  that  the  risen  body  will  share  the  ruin  of 
the  soul  to  which  it  so  closely  conforms  would  appear  inevi- 
table. Indeed,  the  biblical  representations  of  future  penalty 
are  chiefly  physical.  It  is  called  death,  the  undying  worm, 
unquenchable  fire,  outer  darkness,  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.  Taken  literally,  these  repre- 
sentations are  mutually  contradictory ;  they  are  now  gener- 
ally regarded  as  figurative,  and  yet  as  essentially  true.  As 
the  accounts  of  physical  delights  for  the  good  (Rev.  2 1  and 


300  THE   FINAL  STATE 

22)  are  not  taken  literally,  so  neither  need  we  take  literally 
accounts  of  physical  distress  for  the  wicked. 

4.  Errors  as  to  future  punishment. 

( 1 )  A  nnihilationism. 

This  teaches  that  the  souls  as  well  as  the  bodies  of  the 
wicked  will  be  literally  destroyed.  It  assumes  either  that 
the  soul  is  naturally  mortal  and  that  regeneration  alone  con- 
fers immortality,  or  that  suffering  and  the  disuse  of  the  soul's 
normal  powers  issue  in  atrophy  and  final  extinction  of  being. 

Against  this  doctrine  may  be  urged  : 

{a)  The  arguments  already  presented  against  the  natural 
mortality  of  the  soul. 

{p)  The  wicked  are  threatened  with  endless  pain.  Rev. 
21:8  expressly  states  that  to  be  in  the  lake  of  fire  is  "  the 
second  death,"  and  Rev.  14:11  that  "  the  smoke  of  their  tor- 
ment goeth  up  forever  and  ever."  There  is  one  who,  after 
he  has  killed,  can  "  cast  into  hell  "  (Luke  12:4,  5). 

ic)  If  the  wicked  are  to  be  annihilated,  it  could  not  be 
good  for  any  of  them  "if  he  had  not  been  born  "  (Matt.  26  : 
24).  In  fact,  the  penalty  of  the  extremest  sin  would  be  the 
ultimate  reward  which  Buddhism  accords  to  the  loftiest 
virtue. 

(2)  Eternity  of  physical  death. 

Weiss'  "  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament "  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  157),  says  Jesus  taught  that  the  wicked  are  doomed  to 
an  eternal  deprivation  of  the  body ;  that  "  they  remain  for- 
ever in  the  incorporeal  and  therefore  shadowy  condition  in 
which  bodily  death  has  placed  them";  and  that  "the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  soul  in  this  condition,  .  .  .  feared 


THE   FINAL  STATE  3OI 

even  as  a  transition  state,  involves  the  greatest  wretchedness 
when  regarded  as  final." 

While  this  theory  meets  even  better  than  annihilationism 
the  requirements  of  the  texts  upon  which  annihilationism 
rests,  it  is  contravened  by  those  which  teach  the  resurrection 
of  the  wicked. 

(3)  Restoratio7iism. 

This  is  the  universalism  of  the  present  day.  It  is  now 
seldom  taught  that  righteous  and  wicked  alike  pass  at  death 
into  a  state  of  happiness.  The  wicked,  it  is  admitted,  must 
suffer  the  painful  consequences  of  violating  law  ;  but  suffer- 
ing in  a  future  state  is  believed  to  purge  away  sin.  At  most, 
those  only  who  have  blasphemed  against  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
incapable  of  ultimate  rescue.     In  favor  of  this  view — 

A.  A  few  passages  of  Scripture  are  quoted  (Matt.  5  :  26  ; 
John  12  :  32  ;  Rom.  5:18;  Phil.  2  :  9-1 1  ;  Col.  i  :  20 ;  2 
Peter  3:9;!  John  2  :  2). 

B.  Appealing  to  the  nature  of  God,  restorationism  urges 
that  the  divine  justice  will  not  demand,  nor  the  divine  good- 
ness permit,  the  eternal  punishment  of  offenses  committed 
in  time. 

C.  Appealing  to  the  humane  sentiments  which  the  Bible 
itself  has  fostered,  it  insists — 

{a)  That  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  revolting ; 

{b)  That,  if  we  really  believed  in  it,  we  "could  never  smile 
again,"  and — 

{c)  That  the  redeemed  would  be  miserable  in  heaven,  if 
they  knew  that  the  wicked  were  to  be  tormented  forever 
in  hell. 

D.  Appealing  to  human  experience,  the  restorationist  urges 
that,  when  the  disguises  of  sin  and  the  distractions  of  sense 

2  A 


^02  THE   FINAL  STATE 

are  swept  away  by  death,  the  violence  which  sin  does  to  the 
godlike  nature  of  man,  and  the  suffering  which  it  will  be 
found  to  cause,  are  certain  to  fill  the  sinner  with  horror  and 
bring  him  to  true  repentance. 

We  object  to  restorationism — 

(A)  On  scriptural  grounds : 

(a)  It  has  not  made  out  its  case.  The  texts  appealed  to 
are  obviously  susceptible  of  its  interpretation,  yet  this  is  not 
a  necessary  interpretation,  nor  altogether  a  natural  one  to  a 
reader  who  is  not  hoping  to  find  restorationism  in  the  Bible. 

{b)  The  explicit  teaching  of  Scripture  is  against  restora- 
tionism. The  same  word,  ai<i)vi»q==^'  eternal,"  is  used  in  the 
same  verse  (Matt.  2  5  :  46)  to  declare  the  duration  of  blessed- 
ness and  of  woe.  Again,  the  strongest  expression  in  the 
New  Testament  for  endlessness,  elq  ruh-:  almvat;  rwv  aiw.'un>="  for- 
ever and  ever,"  is  used  to  emphasize  the  eternity  of  God's 
glory  (Gal.  1:5;  Eph.  3:21;  Phil.  4  :  20 ;  Heb.  13  :  21  ; 
Rev.  1:6;  etc.),  the  perpetual  exaltation  of  Christ  (Rev.  i  : 
18  ;  4:9,  10  ;  etc.),  the  ceaseless  reign  with  him  of  the  saints 
(Rev.  22  :  5),  and  the  unending  punishment  of  sinners  (Rev. 
20  :  10,  cf.  14  :  II  ;   19  :  3). 

Now,  seeing  that  our  only  clear  knowledge  of  the  future  is 
obtained  from  the  Bible,  it  is  unwarrantable  to  make  deduc- 
tions contrary  to  the  Bible  from  the  infinite  attributes  of  God, 
^  from  Christian  sentiment,  or  from  the  multiform  experience 
of  mankind.  And  yet,  like  other  doctrines,  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  on  this  point  finds  extra-scriptural  confirmation. 
We  notice  then — 

(B)  As  regards  the  divine  attributes — 
{a)  Sin  is  revolting  alike  to  holiness  and  to  love.     Love 
equally  with  holiness  is  supported  by  the  penal  sanctions  of 
law ;  as  may  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  God  is  affronted  and 


THE   FINAL  STATE  3O3 

the  human  heart  hardened  quite  as  much  by  repelling  the  di- 
vine entreaties  as  by  resisting  the  divine  requirements. 

(b)  It  is  not  an  adequate  statement  of  the  current  view 
that  God  will  punish  eternally  the  sins  committed  in  time. 
His  wrath  is  directed  against  evil  in  character,  and  against 
evil  conduct  as  the  expression  and  intensification  of  charac- 
ter. We  conclude  therefore  that  eternal  punishment  will  be 
inflicted  for  eternal  sin,  and  for  acts  in  time  as  involving 
eternal  sin.     To  object  to  this  would  be  irrational. 

(C)  As  regards  Christian  sentitnetit,  the  result  is  not  un- 
equivocally in  favor  of  restorationism. 

{a)  Appeal  to  human  pity  is  met  by  appeal  to  the  self- 
reproaches  of  the  penitent.  One  who  is  penetrated  with  a 
due  sense  of  his  sins,  heartily  accepts  with  David  (Ps.  51:4) 
the  justice  of  any  punishment  which  God  may  inflict,  and 
owns  to  himself  that  he  deserves  to  be  cast  away  forever. 

(b)  Believers  in  eternal  punishment  do  not  wholly  deserve 
the  reproach  that  they  are  either  insincere  or  insensible.  It 
is  a  beneficent  anomaly  of  our  nature  that  the  certainty  of 
death  does  not  often  mar  the  enjoyment  of  human  ties. 
Only  what  the  present  offers  is  easily  paramount  in  our  im- 
aginations and  hearts.  It  is  for  this  reason,  in  part,  that 
restorationists  themselves  are  not  deeply  concerned  about 
the  purgatorial  sufferings  of  unknown  intensity  and  duration 
which  await  the  wicked. 

(c)  The  redeemed  in  heaven  will  undoubtedly  accept  the 
'•judgments  of  Jehovah"  as  "true and  righteous  altogether"; 
and  we  shall  not  be  more  loving  than  he  (i  Cor.  6  :  2).  But 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  blessed  are  indifferent  to  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  lost.  Pity  may  be  as  consistent  with  their 
happiness  as  with  that  of  God,  whose  pity  moved  him  even 
to  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son. 


304  THE   FINAL  STATE 

(D)  As  regards  the  vioral  experience  of  mankind — 
(a)  Suffering  is  not  always  reformatory.  "  The  sorrow  of 
the  world  worketh  death"  (2  Cor.  7  :  10).  It  is  entirely 
within  the  range  of  experience  that  chastisement  embitters 
the  evil-doer.  Terror  and  distress  might  even  be  too  over- 
whelming to  be  reformatory.  The  wicked  repent  not,  but 
even  blaspheme  because  of  the  pain  (Rev.  16  :  9-1 1). 

(p)  Experience  emphasizes  the  ethical  importance  of  the 
stern  teachings  of  the  Bible.  The  penalty  adjudged  is  the 
measure  of  a  wrong  condemned.  To  deny  the  scriptural 
penalty  for  sin  is  to  deny  the  scriptural  estimate  of  the  hei- 
nousness  of  sin.  Still  further,  to  abate  at  all  the  heinousness 
of  sin  is  to  subtract  as  much  from  the  worth  of  holiness ;  the 
holiness  of  God  will  not  long  be  regarded  as  supremely  adora- 
ble ;  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  cannot  remain 
the  heart's  deepest  longing,  nor  the  attainment  of  moral  like- 
ness to  God  be  prized  as  the  highest  destiny  of  the  redeemed. 

(4)  Future  Probation. 

A  future  probation  is  taught  only  by  Protestants.  Accord- 
ing to  Roman  Catholicism,  probation  ends  at  death,  and  pur- 
gatory is  "  a  place  in  which  souls  who  depart  this  life  in  the 
grace  of  God,  .  .  .  but  are  not  pure  and  holy  enough  to  see 
God,"  are  cleansed  by  suffering.  The  doctrine  of  restora- 
tionism  just  discussed  is  a  doctrine  of  future  probation.  Also 
advocates  of  what  is  called  "the  New  Theology"  teach  that 
the  period  between  death  and  judgment  will  probably  afford 
a  probation  to  those  who  have  not  in  this  life  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  accept  the  historic  Christ.  This  conjectural  proba- 
tion is  supported  by — 

A.  An  appeal  to  Scripture.     Esoecial   reliance  is  placed 


THE  FINAL  STATE  305 

upon  the  preaching  of  Christ  to  the  spirits  in  prison  (i  Peter 
3  :  18-20,  cf.  4  :  6). 

But  this  passage  is  inconclusive,  because — 

(a)  I  Peter  i  :  1 1  calls  the  spirit  which  testified  in  the 
prophets  "the  spirit  of  Christ,"  and  the  passage  before  us 
may  refer  to  the  Spirit  which  spake  through  Noah  to  the 
men  of  his  generation. 

(b)  Or,  if  Peter  means  that  Christ,  after  the  crucifixion, 
proclaimed  the  gospel  to  those  who  had  been  drowned  in  the 
flood,  he  does  not  tell  us  that  they  were  delivered  from  prison ; 
still  less  that  the  gospel  was  preached  by  Christ  to  any  ante- 
diluvian or  postdiluvian  sinners ;  least  of  all  that  it  was 
thereafter  to  be  offered  by  him  to  all  who  die  without  having 
heard  it. 

(c)  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  tells  us  that  "as  many  as  have 
sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  without  law  "  (Rom.  2  : 
12);  adds  that  this  is  judgment  "according  to  my  gospel" 
(ver.  16);  warns  us  that  all  will  "receive  the  things  done  in 
the  body  .  .  .  whether  it  be  good  or  bad  "  (2  Cor.  5  :  10) ; 
foretells  that  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  render  "vengeance  to 
them  that  know  not  God "  (heathen),  "  and  to  them  that 
obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  "  (unbelieving  Jews) 
(2  Thess.  I  :  8). 

B.  An  appeal  to  the  tmiversality  of  Christianity. 

[a)  Christ  came  for  all ;  therefore  all  will  presumably  be 
allowed  an  opportunity  to  accept  him. 

(b)  It  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  compassionate  love 
of  God  to  condemn  to  eternal  woe  any  one  whose  character 
is  not  unalterably  fixed  in  wickedness  ;  but  such  a  state  is  not 
reached  until  the  sinner  has  rejected  the  strongest  incentives 
to  righteousness,  and  these  are  found  only  in  Christ. 


306  THE   FINAL  STATE 

(c)  Christian  consciousness  has  been  trained  by  the  Script 
ures  themselves  to  insist  upon  a  future  probation  which  the 
Scriptures  do  not  expressly  declare. 

These  inferences  are  open  to  the  objections  : 
(a)  That  a  finite  being  is  incompetent  to  judge  what  the 
infinite  excellencies  of  God  lead  him  to  do. 

(d)  Christian  consciousness  cannot  be  confidently  appealed 
to  in  support  of  a  novel  doctrine  which  may  prove  to  be  but 
a  passing  fancy  of  the  times. 

II.    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUS. 

The  Bible  exhausts  imagery  in  describing  the  blessedness 
of  heaven. 

The  happiness  of  the  righteous  will  probably  be  as  varied 
as  their  capabilities.  The  reason  for  so  believing  is  that  un- 
employed powers  are  a  source  of  discomfort,  while  normal 
activity  always  produces  delight. 

The  bodies  of  the  redeemed  will  participate  in  the  well- 
being  of  their  souls.  The  resurrection  restores  completeness, 
and  is  an  element  in  their  satisfaction  (Ps.  17  :  15).  The  pos- 
session of  the  spiritual  body  must  be  taken  into  account  in 
every  attempt  to  conceive  the  estate  of  the  blessed. 

More  specifically,  it  is  either  expressly  taught  in  the  Bible, 
or  it  may  reasonably  be  inferred,  that — 

I.  T/ie  spiritual  body  will  be  exempt  from  physical  discom- 
fort and  decay  (Rev.  7  :  16  ;  21  :  4). 

Its  local  relations  could  be  determined  only  by  making  out 
the  constitution  of  the  spiritual  body  ;  but  the  very  idea  of 
body  seems  to  involve  the  idea  of  place ;  and  the  Bible  cer- 
tainly warrants  an  assured  anticipation  that  heaven  will  V»e  a 
home  (John  14  :  2,  3  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  8,  R.  V.). 


THE  FINAL  STATE  307 

2.  The  mind  will  be  fully  employed  in  knowing  God,  and 
in  knowing  all  that  is  implied  in  a  full  knowledge  of  him 
(i  Cor.  13  :  12). 

The  spiritual  body  will  undoubtedly  be  the  facile  organ  of 
increasing  knowledge ;  but  in  what  ways  and  measure  can 
only  be  conjectured. 

3.  Release  from  sin  will  be  due  to  the  full  development  of 
that  sonship  which  is  imparted  in  the  new  birth,  and  is  per- 
fected when  we  see  the  Lord  (i  John  3  :  2). 

The  moral  relations  of  the  redeemed  body  are  highly  inter- 
esting and  important. 

{a)  The  senses  will  no  longer  tempt  to  sensuality,  nor,  pre- 
sumably, will  they  distract  the  attention  of  the  mind  from  its 
proper  employment ;  since  whatever  is  presented  to  the  mind 
in  heaven  will  be  a  suitable  object  of  notice. 

{b)  When  perfection  is  in  question,  much  more  than  deliv- 
erance from  gross  offenses  is  required.  In  art,  said  Michael 
Angelo,  "  trifles  make  perfection,  but  perfection  is  no  trifle." 
It  is  a  physical  law  that  the  least  increase  in  the  speed  of  a 
rapid  runner  is  secured  only  by  greatly  increased  effort.  Anal- 
ogously, it  is  of  high  moment  to  the  spirit  that  bodily  infirm- 
ities shall  be  at  an  end  ;  that  the  spiritual  body  shall  not 
falter  and  faint  under  the  demands  of  moral  energy,  as  often 
now,  when  "the  spirit  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  Its 
healthful  alacrity  may  even  stimulate  the  willing  spirit. 

4.  The  recognition  of  friends  in  heaven  is  assured — 

{a)  By  the  very  fact  of  the  resurrection.  To  have  bodies 
is  to  be  recognizable  here,  and  recognizable  there.  Only 
anxious  affection  could  doubt  this.  The  saint  will  know  him- 
self ;  it  is  incredible  that  the  spiritual  body  will  not  afford 
him  any  means  of  making  himself  known. 

{b)  To  have  spiritual  bodies  is  not  improbably  to  be  far 


3o8  THE   FINAL  STATE 

more  recognizable  than  now ;  because  the  spiritual  body  by 
serving  as  the  perfect  instrument,  becomes  the  perfect  mirror 
of  the  soul. 

(c)  The  fact  that  recognition  must  be  inferred  from  resur- 
rection accounts  for  the  silence  of  Scripture  on  a  point  of  so 
deep  and  so  widely  felt  interest.  The  Sadducees  took  it  for 
granted  in  the  question  which  they  put  to  Jesus  (Matt.  22  : 
23-29) ;  and  Jesus  took  it  for  granted  in  his  reply  that  "  in 
the  resurrection  they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  mar- 
riage "  (ver.  30).  It  would  have  been  an  obvious  and  a  com- 
plete answer  that  the  wife  of  seven  husbands  could  not  recog- 
nize any  of  them,  if  this  were  to  be  the  case. 

(d)  Social  relations  of  the  blessed  are  involved  in  Paul's 
assurance  that  the  Thessalonian  disciples  would  be  his  hope, 
joy,  crown  of  glorying  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  Jesus  at 
his  coming  (i  Thess.  2  :  19).  They  were  illustrated  by  the 
fact  that  Moses  and  Elijah  talked  with  Christ  at  his  transfig- 
uration, and  were  known  by  the  disciples. 

(e)  Love  itself,  the  crowning  grace  of  the  future  as  of  the 
present  life  (i  Cor.  13  :  13),  will  be  the  ceaseless  torment  of 
the  holy,  if  they  are  never  to  meet  and  to  know  those  whom 
they  love.  So  cruel  and  so  preposterous  would  such  a  disap- 
pointment be  that  our  eager  affections  furnish  the  answer  to 
their  own  question. 

5.  A  doctrine  of  Beatific  Vision  is  taught  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament (i  Cor.  13:12;  I  John  3  :  2),  and  impressively  sup- 
ported by  the  elder  Scriptures  (Ps.  17  :  15,  cf.  Num.  12  :  8). 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  confidently  defines  the  nature 
of  the  vision  of  God  which  is  permitted  to  his  saints  :  she 
holds  that  those  who  are  purified  from  all  sin  behold  with  the 
spirit  the  essence,  the  attributes,  and  the  Tri-unity  of  the 
Godhead.     But  the  attempt  to  construe  the  knowledge  of  the 


THE  FINAL  STATE  309 

Supreme  Spirit  which  the  blessed  enjoy  as  different  in  kind 
from  the  communion  that  believers  now  have  with  the  Father 
(i  John  I  :  3)  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  14  :  17  ;  2  Cor. 
13  :  14),  involves  self-contradictions  which  become  the  more 
pronounced  with  every  effort  at  precision  of  statement. 

Whether,  then,  the  spiritual  body  will  possess  faculties  by 
which  it  can  discern  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  we  cannot 
know,  and  well  may  doubt.  But  every  promise  of  the  Sec- 
ond Coming  assures  us  that  we  shall  see  the  Lord,  behold  in 
him  the  glory  of  the  Godhead  (Matt.  16  :  27 ;  Rev.  i  :  7),  and 
be  satisfied  (Ps.  17  :  15). 


INDEX  TO  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


Abelard,  199,203. 

Ability,  natural,  153. 

Abiogenesis,  88. 

Abnormality,  essence  of  sin,  138. 

Adam's  natural  headship,  146. 

Adoption,  260, 262,  263. 

Agnosticism,  4. 

Aims  of  theology,  21. 

Ancient  worthies,  186,  210,  239. 

Angels,  115. 

Annihilationism,  267,  284,  300, 

Anselm,  50, 166, 199,  201. 

Anthropology,  12 '. 

Antinomianism,  274. 

Apes,  122. 

ApoUinarism,  167. 

Apostolic  church  and  Christ,  163. 

Aquinas,  199. 

Arminianism,  83, 144,  207. 

Arianism,  166. 

Attributes  of  God,  63  ;  relations  of,  75. 

Atonement,  197. 
Historical  survey,  198;  patristic  theory, 
198;  satisfaction  theory,  198;  scholastic 
theories,  199;  Romish  theory,  199;  re- 
former's theory,  200;  federalist  theory, 
200;  moral  influence  theory,  203;  gov- 
ernmental theory,  206 ;  Arminian  theory, 
207;  realistic  theories,  208;  comparative 
view,  211. 
Biblical  statement,  213;  gift  of  love,  213; 
cross  expiatory,  213, 232. 238 ;  resurrection 
piacular,  216  ;  moral  efficacy,  218. 
Theoretical  statement,  223 ;  postulates,  224 ; 
Christ  representative,  224 ;  representative 
bears  sin,  229;  sin-bearing  expiates,  231 , 
expiation  renews,  234,  238,  263,  270;  ne- 
cessity of  atonement,  236 ;  extent  of 
atonement,  239. 

Beatific  yision,  308. 

Benevolence,  71,  and  justice  of  God,  74,  76. 

Bernard,  199. 


Bible :  source  of  theology,  7 ;  and  science,  11 ; 
and  intuitions,  12;  and  church,  18;  doc- 
trine of  itself,  24 ;  authority,  7, 13, 17,  31. 

Biology  and  creation,  88. 

Blasphemy  of  Holy  Spirit,  181, 182. 

Bushnell  on  atonement,  203. 

Calling,  divine,  249. 

Calvinism :  decrees,  82 ;  fall,  141 ;  depravity, 
145 ;  responsibility,  154 ;  atonement,  200 ; 
extent  of  atonement,  240;  election  and 
calling,  243,  246,  249. 

Campbell,  McLeod :  on  atonement,  204. 

Causation,  42,  44,  96. 

Chalcedon  Christology,  168. 

Change  and  time :  ratio  of,  40. 

Christ :  proof  of  a  God,  59 ;  humanity,  168 ; 
divinity,  159;  relations  of  natures,  167; 
two  states,  178;  humiliation,  178;  exalta- 
tion, 179  ;  offices,  19(5 ;  interdependence 
of  offices,  196;  atonement,  197 ;  teachings, 
219,  234 ;  representative,  224 ;  relations  to 
universe,  225 ;  sin-bearer,  229 ;  sacrifice, 
214,231;  lordship,  234;  intercessor,  218, 
241;  second  advent,  287 ;  body  after  resur- 
rection, 293;  judge,  297. 

Christian  consciousness,  12,  16,  165,  181,  183, 
278,  303,  306,  308. 

Christian  experience  (see  Christian  conscious- 
ness). 

Christianity  in  history,  57. 

Church :  source  of  theoL  gy,  8 ;  and  Bible,  18 ; 
and  Holy  Spirit,  187. 

Clarke,  Samuel :  theistic  argument  of^  51. 

Cocceius  on  atonement,  200. 

Comparative  theology,  21, 117. 

Concursus,  100, 103. 

Conditions  of  eschatology,  282. 

Conscience,  53, 152. 

Consciousness  and  immortality,  285. 

Conservation,  95. 

Constantinople  christology,  169. 

Constitution  of  man,  124. 

3ii 


3^2 


INDEX 


Continuity,  law  of,  96. 

Continuous  creation,  99, 103. 

Convertibility  of  force,  42,  97,  148,  285. 

Cosmological  argument,  39. 

Covenants,  145,  200. 

Creation,  40,  44,  47,  83;  final  cause  in,  93;  of 

man,  121. 
Creatioui.sm,  127,145. 

Crucifixion:  expiates,  213 ;  renews,  220,  235. 
Cud  worth's  theistic  argument,  61. 
Cycles :  theory  of,  41. 

Death,  141,  283. 

Decrees  of  God,  76;  evidences  of,  77;  safe- 
guards, SO;  theories,  82. 

Deism,  100, 103. 

Demons,  118. 

Depravity,  143 ;  extent  of,  143 ;  theories,  144. 

Descartes'  theistic  argument,  50. 

Design  argument,  47. 

Determinism  (see  Necessitarianism). 

Devils,  118. 

Dichotomy,  124. 

Diophysitism,  168. 

Diothelitism,  169. 

Dispensation  of  Holy  Spirit,  184. 

Dissipation  of  energy,  41. 

Divinity  of  Christ,  159;  evidence,  160 ;  the- 
ories, 165. 

Divinity  of  Holy  Spirit,  181. 

Docetism,  166. 

Dorner's  christology,  171. 

Dualism,  46,  99. 

Duns  Scotus,  199, 207. 

Election  and  calling,  243;  controrersy,  243; 

fact  of   election,  244 ;    conditions,   247 ; 

execution,  calling,  249. 
Empiricism,  9,  38,  44. 
Energy  (see  Force). 
Eschatology,  282. 
^ysthelic  sensibility,  53. 
Eternity  assumahle,  38. 
Eternity  of  God,  64. 
Eternity  of  matter,  11,  40,  47,  86,  98. 
Eternal  generation,  194. 
Eternal  punishment,  299. 
Ethereal  body,  295. 
Eutaxiological  argument,  45. 
Eutychianism,  16R. 
Evil,  origin  of,  82,  141,  1.55. 
Evolution,  9,  12,  38,  39,  49,  65,  89,  122,  136. 


Exaltation  of  Christ,  179. 
Exegesis,  8,  15,  20. 
Expiation,  213,  216,  232,  234,  238. 
Extent  of  atonement,  239 ;  purpose,  239 ;  pro- 
vision, 240. 

Faith  253 :  nat  u  re  of,  V53 ;  offices,  2.56  ;  relation 
to  election,  248;  relation  to  regeneration, 
263. 

Fall  of  man,  13S:  problem,  139;  theories,  140; 
penal  consequences,  141. 

Federalism,  145,  200,  201. 

Final  cause  in  creation,  93. 

Final  perseverance  of  saints,  279. 

Final  state,  299:  of  wicked,  299  —  eternal 
punishment,  299;  errors,  300;  of  right- 
eous, 306. 

Finality,  immanent,  49. 

First  cause,  42,  86,  96, 148. 

First  truths,  9,  10,  36,  38, 120. 

Force,  41,  42,  97, 100,  108. 

Foreknowledge,  67,  247. 

Forgiveness,  213,  216,  263. 

Freedom,  146, 151 :  necessity  coinciding  with, 
151 ;  formal,  151 ;  real,  152. 

Future  probation,  304. 

Ood :  existence,  36 ;  not  intuited,  36 ;  in  his- 
tory, 56,  81 ;  personality,  59  ;  unity,  61 ; 
attributes,  63 ;  motive  in  creation,  93. 

Governmental  theory  of  atonement,  206. 

Grotius :  theory  of  atonement,  206. 

Hamilton,  Sir  W. :  agnosticism,  4,  6. 

Heathenism,  117, 157. 

Heaven,  306. 

Hegel :  his  idea  of  religion,  8 ;  of  moral  attri- 
butes, 4,  6. 

Hell,  299. 

Heredity,  128. 

Heterogenesis,  92. 

Higher  life,  277. 

Historical  argument  for  theism,  56. 

Holiness  of  God,  70  ;  primacy  of,  75. 

Holy  Spirit:  divinity  of,  181;  personality, 
181;  sin  against,  181,  182;  offices,  184— 
under  old  covenant,  185;  under  new 
covenant,  186 — dispensation  of,  184 ;  pro- 
cession of,  195. 

Human  element  in  Bible,  29. 

Humanitarianism,  166. 

Humanity  of  Christ,  158. 

Hume,  36. 


INDEX 


313 


Humilittlon  of  Christ,  178. 
HypercalTlnism,  82, 141,  243,  246. 

Illumination,  24,  27,  32. 

Image  of  God  in  man,  8, 14, 129, 173. 

Immanent  finality,  49. 

Immortality  of  soul,  284,  300. 

Immutability  of  God,  64. 

Inability  and  responsibility,  153. 

Incarnation  :  reason  of,  236. 

Infallibility  of  church,  18;  of  Bible,  31. 

Infant  salvation,  156. 

Infinite  incomprehensible,  4,  7,  22,  43,  65,  68. 

Infralapsarianism,  247. 

Inspiration,  24;  definitions,  24 ;  evidences, 
24;  phenomena,  26;  elements,  28  ;  au- 
thority, 31 ;  theories,  31. 

Intercession  of  Christ,  218,  241. 

Interdependence  of  Christ's  offices,  196. 

Intermediate  state,  286 ;  incomplete,  286 ; 
conscious,  286 ;  activities,  287. 

Intuitions  (see  first  truths). 

James'  doctrine  of  works,  263. 

Janet's  teleology,  49. 

Judaism,  157, 185,  191,  214,  218. 

Judgment :  final,  297. 

Justice  of  God,  73,  205,  207,  213,  238. 

Justification,  260 ;  nature,  260 ;  evidence,  260  ; 

difficulties,  261 ;  relation  to  regeneration, 

262. 

Kant,  3,  4,  6,  38. 

Eenosis,  170. 

Knowing  Qod  possible,  i. 

Last  judgment,  297. 

Law:  universal,  45;  relation  to  love,  71,  72; 
relation  to  miracles,  108 ;  of  God,  131 ; 
idea  of,  131 ;  source,  133 ;  obligation,  134 ; 
relation  to  sin,  135;  relation  to  penalty, 
141,  154,  208 ;  relation  to  nature  of  Christ, 
172;  relation  to  perfectionism,  276. 

Lechler's  idea  of  religion,  3. 

Libertarianism,  150. 

Limits  of  theology,  22. 

Logos,  167,  170,  171,  172,  193,  225. 

Loss  of  moral  freedom,  146. 

Love:  theistic  inference  from,  54;  nature  of, 
72 ;  merit,  73 ;  relation  to  justice,  74 ; 
relation  to  atonement,  213;  affronted  by 
pin,  302 ;  recognizes  in  heaven,  308. 


Magic,  113. 

Mansel,  4,  6. 

Man :  source  of  theology,  8 ;  image  of  God, 

8,  14,  129;    nature,   120;   creation,  121; 

unity   of   race,  124;    constitution,    124; 

origin  of  soul,  127 ;  original  condition, 

130 ;  fall,  138. 
Mary's  knowledge  of  Christ,  160. 
Materialism,  45. 

Mathematics  and  theism,  45,  86. 
Matter  and  force,  42,  97,  100 ;   eternity  of 

(see  Eternity  of  Matter) ;  and  motion  of, 

39. 
Maurice  on  atonement,  203. 
Maxwell,  Clerk;  on  constitution  of  matter, 

40 ;  on  matter  and  force,  97. 
Metaphysical  proof  of  creation,  42,  85. 
Methods:    of  theology,  23;   of  christology, 

159, 167. 
Middle  state,  286. 
Millennium,  288. 
Mind  and  world,  9,  45,  85,  96. 
Miracles,  108;  nature,  108;  credibility,  109; 

office,  111 ;  congruity  with  doctrine,  113. 
Monism,  45,  95,  99. 
Monophysitism,  168. 
Monotheism,  61. 
Moral  argument  for  theism,  52. 
Moral  freedom,  146. 

Moral  influence  theory  of  atonement,  203. 
Moral  penalties,  206. 

Mystical  idea :  of  religion,  3 ;  of  omnipres- 
ence, 69. 

Native  depravity  (see  Depravity). 

Nature  of  man,  120. 

Natural  headship  of  Adam,  146. 

Nature  a  source  of  theology,  9. 

Necessitarianism,  148. 

Necessity  and  freedom  coincide,  151. 

Necessary  existence,  38,  51. 

Necessity  of  atonement,  236  ;  to  God,  237 ;  to 

man,  238. 
Necessity  of  incarnation,  236. 
Necessity  of  sin,  140. 
Nestorianism,  168. 

New  England  theology,  74, 144, 153,  206. 
New  school  (see  New  England  theology). 
New  theology,  12,  304. 
Nicene  doctrine  of  Trinity,  194. 

Offices  of  Christ,  196;  interdependent,  196; 
doctrines  classified  by,  197. 


3M 


INDEX 


Offices  of  Holy  Spirit,  184. 

Old  School  on  responsibility,  153. 

Omnipotence,  66. 

Omnipresence,  69. 

Omniscience,  67. 

Ontological  argument,  50. 

Order,  45  (see  Law). 

Ordo  salutis,  242. 

Origen,  166,  198,  289. 

Origin  of  evil,  76,  82,  139,  141, 155. 

Origin  of  souls,  127. 

Original  condition  of  man,  130. 

Original  innocence,  129,  137. 

Pantheism,  61,  95,  103,  209;  Christian,  96; 
dynamic,  42,  99. 

Paul:  on  decrees,  79,  81;  constitution  of 
man,  125;  essence  of  sin,  136;  depravity, 
146  ;  divinity  of  Christ,  164  ;  huuiilia- 
tion  of  Christ,  178;  exaltation  of  Christ, 
180;  generation  of  Christ,  194;  expia- 
tion, 215 ;  resurrection  atones,  217  ;  atone- 
ment regenerates,  221 ;  cosmic  offices 
of  Christ,  225;  election,  245;  nature  of 
faith,  254,  256;  offices  of  faith,  256,  258; 
justification  and  regeneration,  264;  per- 
fection, 274;  intermediate  state,  286; 
second  coming,  291 ;  spiritual  body,  293, 
297. 

Pelagianism,  82, 144. 

Penal  consequences  of  fall,  141 ;  death,  141 ; 
depravity,  143;  loss  of  freedom,  146;  de- 
rangement of  conscience,  152. 

Penalty :  natural,  141 ;  nature  of,  299  ;  eternal, 
299 ;  errors,  300. 

Perfection :  argument  from  for  theism,  50, 
63  ;  for  unity  of  God,  63. 

Perfectionism,  275. 

Perseverance  of  saints,  279;  human  aspect, 
279 ;  divine  aspect,  280. 

Personality  of  God,  59 ;  also  monopersonality 
and  tripersonality,  189. 

Personality  of  Holy  Spirit,  181. 

Philosophy  and  thei8m,'38;  and  Christianity, 
157;  and  atonement,  211. 

Physiological  theory  of  Christ,  172  ;  one  per- 
son, 172;  one  species,  173;  one  soul,  174; 
epitome,  176. 

Plymouth  Brethren,  267,276,277. 

Polytheism  and  monotheism,  62;  and  angels, 
117. 

Poit'inlUenarianism,  3M, 


Power  of  contrary  choice,  147, 160. 

Prayer,  105. 

Pre-existence  of  souls,  127. 

Pre-millenarianism,  288. 

Preparation  :   for  coming  of  Chriat,  157  ;  for 

accepting  gospel,  157 ;  for  extending  the 

gospel,  158. 
Priesthood  and  prophecy,  186. 
Primacy  in  moral  attributes,  75. 
Primary  beliefs,  (see  First  truths). 
Primitive  generation,  92. 
Probation,  future,  304. 
Procession  of  Holy  Spirit,  195. 
Progressive  incarnation,  171. 
Prophecy,  157, 186, 214,  282. 
Providence:  illustrated, 57, 102;  general,  101; 

particular,  102;  theories,  103. 
Punishment,  (see  Penalty). 

Realism,  146, 169,  208,  227. 

Realistic  view :  of  depravity,  146 ;  of  Christ, 
169;  of  atonement,  208,  227. 

Reason  of  man,  120. 

Recognition  in  heaven,  307. 

Regeneration:  under  old  covenant,  186;  re- 
lation to  justification,  262;  nature,  265; 
errors,  266 ;  agent,  268 ;  means,  269 ;  neces- 
sity, 270 ;  evidences,  270. 

Relation  of  natures  in  Christ,  167. 

Religion :  relations  of  to  theology,  2 ;  theories 
of.  3. 

Repentance,  251 ;  elements  in,  252. 

Representation  in  Christ,  224. 

Responsibility,  154. 

Restorationism,  301. 

Resurrection  of  body,  292;  theories,  294. 

Resurrection  of  Christ:  piacular,  216,  28S; 
life-giving,  223,  235. 

Revelation,  24. 

Ritschl  on  atonement,  203. 

Roman  empire  and  gospel,  158. 

Sabellianism,  193. 

Sacramentalism  on  regeneration,  26€. 

Sacrifices,  213,  218. 

Salvation  of  infants,  156. 

Sanctification,  272 ;  extent,  273 ;  provision  for, 

274 ;  errors,  274. 
Satan,  118. 

Satisfaction  theory,  198. 
Schleiermacher,  3, 12,  209. 
Science:  and  philosophy,  9;  and  Bible,  11; 


INDEX 


315 


and  creation,  89,  86;  etchatology,  282; 

immortality,  285;  resurrection,  294, 296. 
Scotug,  199, 207. 
Second  advent,  287 ;  relation  to  millennium, 

288. 
Self-determination  of  ego,  147,  151 ;  of  will, 

147. 
Selfishness,  137. 
Self-regarding  functions,  72. 
Self-love,  72. 
Semi-arianism,  166. 
Semi-pantheism,  99. 
Semi-pelagianism,  144. 
Sensuality,  136. 
Sermon  on  Mount,  3,  219. 
Sin,  136  ;  definition,  135 ;  phases,  135 ;  essence, 

136. 
Sin-bearing,  229. 
Social  functions,  72. 
Social  love,  72. 
Social  state  in  heaven,  307. 
Soteriology,  157. 
Souls :  origin  of,  127 ;  pre-existence,  127 ;  crea- 

tionism  and  traducianism,  127. 
Soul-sleeping,  286. 

Sources  of  theology,  7 ;  relations  of,  9. 
Special  creation,  11,  89,  93. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  4,  6, 10. 
Spirit  of  the  times,  12,  15,  23. 
Spiritual  body,  293,  306,  307. 
Spirituality  of  God,  65. 
Spontaneous  generation,  88. 
Subordinationism,  166. 
Sublapsarianism,  247. 
Supralapsarianism,  246. 
Symbols  in  religion,  185. 

Teachings  of  Christ,  319. 


Teleological  argument,  47. 

Theistic  arguments,  36. 

Theism  universal,  57. 

Theology :  definition,  1 ;  titles,  1 ;  relation  to 
religion,  2 ;  possibility,  4 ;  sources,  7  ;  re- 
lation of  sources,  9 ;  aims,  21;  limitations, 
22 ;  methods,  23 ;  proper,  36. 

Theological  sciences,  19. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  199. 

Time  and  change :  ratio  of,  40. 

Total  depravity,  143. 

Traducianism,  127. 

Trichotomy,  125,  267. 

Trinity  :  and  divine  consciousness,  61,  191 ; 
and  monism,  98;  definition,  189;  evi- 
dences, 189 ;  relations  within,  192. 

Trust,  54,  256,  258. 

Two  states  of  Christ,  178. 

Unity  of  God,  61. 
Unity  of  universe,  62,  96,  98. 
Unity  of  human  race,  124. 
UniversaUsm  (see  restorationism). 
Utilitarianism,  55,  56, 137,  208. 

Vicariousness  of  Christ,  224. 
Vital  principle,  88,  285. 
Volition  and  cause,  42, 44,  96. 

Weiss'  doctrine  of  second  death,  300. 
Wesleyanism,  144,  207,  244,  249,  276, 
Will  and  causation  {see  Volition,  etc.);  na- 
ture of  will,  147  ;  freedom  of,  147, 
Word  (see  Logos). 

World  and  mind  (see  Mind  and  world). 
World,  a  source  of  theology,  9. 
Worship,  nature  of,  64. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  POLITY 


OF  THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH 


To  him  be  the  glory  in  the  Church  and  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  all  the  generations  of  the  eternal  ages.     Eph.  j  .•  21. 


CONTENTS 


PAOS 

The  Church 11-27 

I.  Uses  of  "  Ecclesia" 14-24 

1.  In  Classics 14-16 

2.  In  Septuagint 16 

3.  In  New  Testament 17-24 

A.  Whole    Body   of   Believ- 

ers   17-22 

B.  Local  Body  of  Believ- 

ers   22-24 

n.  Definition  of  "Church" 24-27 

1.  Professed  Believers 24,  25 

2.  Baptized 26 

3.  On  Credible  Profession 26 

4.  Purpose  Stated 27 

The  Ordinances 27-45 

A.  Definition 27,  28 

B.  Importance 28 

I.  Baptism 29-35 

1.  From  Christ 29 

2.  Permanent 29 

3.  Commemorative 29 

4.  Symbolical 29,  30 

5.  By  Immersion 30,  31 

(a)  Classic  Usage 30 

(6)  New  Testament  Usage 30 

(c)  As  Figurative 30 

(rf)  As  Commemorative 30 

(e)  As  Symbolical 30 

(/)  Consensus     of     Christen- 
dom   30,  31 

II.  Communion 35-45 

1.  Its  Nature 35-38 

2.  Sacramental  Theories  of  its 

Nature 39-41 


PAOK 

(a)  Zwinglian 39 

(6)  Calvinistic 39,  40 

(c)  German  Reformed 40 

(d)  Lutheran 40,  41 

(e)  High  Church  Episcopalian  41 
(/)  Romanist 41 

3.  Participants 41-44 

A.  Why  Restricted 42,  43 

^^a)  Relation  to  Baptism 42 

{i>)  New  Testament  Ex- 
ample   42,  43 

(c)  If  open,  subverts  bap- 
tism   43 

((/)  Not  consistently  urged...  43 

(e)  Precedence  of  baptism 
admitted 43 

(/)  Evils  of  open  commun- 
ion   43 

B.  Objections 43,  44 

(a)  Lord's  table 43 

(b)  Restriction  unscriptnral.  44 

(c)  Inconsistent 44 

4.  Frequency  of  Celebration 44 

5.  Title  of  Ordinance 44,45 

Church  Polity 46-76 

I.  Determination  of  a  Polity....  46-51 

1.  Polity  an  Outgrowth 46,47 

(a)  Of  church  life 46 

(b)  Gradual 46 

(c)  With  divine  and  human 

elements 47 

(d)  Stages  of  early  growth....  47 

2.  Scriptural  Authority 47 

(ct)  In  New  Testament 47 

7 


8 


CONTENTS 


PAGK 

(b)  Permanently  binding 47 

(c)  In  principle,  not  detail 47 

3.  Regulative  Principles 48,49 

(a)  Relation     of     Christ    to 

members 48 

(6)  Relation     of    Christ    to 

church 49 

(c)  Relation  of    members  to 

members..  49 

{(i)  Completeness  of  church...     49 

4.  Criteria  of  Polity 49-51 

(a)  Criteria  stated 49 

(6)  Relations  of  criteria 49,  50 

(c)  Law  and  liberty 50,  51 

H.  Officers  of  the  Church 51-09 

(I)  Transient  Officers ...  52-58 

1.  Apostles 52-56 

A.  Rise  of  Apostolate....  52,53 

B.  Apostolate  Transient.  53,  54 

(a)  Nature  of  office 52,53 

(b)  Instructions 54 

(c)  Qualifications 54 

(d)  Inauguration 55 

(e)  Course  of  Apostles 55 

(/)  No    sign   of   perma- 
nence   55 

{(/)  Office  comprehen- 

sive 55,  56 

2.  Prophets 56 

(o)  Meaning  of  title 56 

(6)  Office  foretold 56 

(c)  Itsrank 56 

{d)  Its  scope 56 

3.  Evangelists 57,68 

A.  Their  Office 57 

(a)  Timothy 57 

(6)  Titus 57 

B.  Essentially  Transient...  58 

4.  Pastors  and  Teachers 58 

(a)  Functions     not     desig- 
nated   58 


PAOI 

(6)  Pastor  not  a  bishop 58 

(c)  "  Angel  of  church  "  un- 
certain      58 

(II)  Permanent  Officers 58-69 

(A)  Needed 69 

(B)  Titles  Descriptive 69 

1.  Bishop  or  Presbyter 59-68 

A.  Titles 58,60 

B.  Identity  of  Office 60,61 

C.  Divinely  Appointed 61 

D.  Plurality  of  Elders 61 

E.  Duties 61-63 

(a)  To  preach 61 

(6)  To  shepherd 61,62 

(c)  To  teach 62 

(d)  To  lead 62 

(e)  To  rule 62,63 

(/)  To  preside 63 

F.  Qualifications 63 

G.  Call  to  Ministry 63,  C4 

(a)  Native  qualifications....     63 
(6)  Inward  vocation 63 

(c)  Church's    approval 63 

(d)  Providential  leadings  63,  64 
Conclusion 64 

H.   Ordination 64,65 

(a)  Significance 64 

(6)  Ceremonial 65 

(c)  Authority  to  ordain 65 

I.  Errors  as  to  Ministry 66-68 

(A)  Ruling  Elders 66 

(B)  Priestly  Functions 66,67 

(C)  Three  Orders 67 

(a)  Meager  history  of  rise    67 
(6)  Felt  need  of  leaders...     67 

(c)  Example     of    Roman 

Empire 67 

(d)  Foreshadowed  apostasy     68 

(/)  Sacerdotal  ideas 68 

(/)  Antiquity  of  errors 68 

2.  Deacons 68,69 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

(a)  Origin  of  oflBce 68 

(6)  Meaning  of  title 68 

(c)  Qualifications 69 

{d)  Duties 69 

m.  Internal  Government 69-73 

1.  Principles 72 

2.  Aims 72 

3.  Scope 72,73 

4.  Rules  of  Order 73 

5.  Church  Discipline 69-71 

(1)  Excisions 69-71 

A.  Personal  offenses 69,  7  0 

B.  Public  offenses 70 

(a)  Scandalous  sins 70 

(6)  Heresy 70 

(c)  Disorderly  walk 70 

C.  Other  Cases 71 

(a)  Uncharacteristic 

faults 71 

(6)  Pecuniary     disagree- 
ments      71 

(2)  Restorations 71 

IV.  External  Relations 73-76 


PAQK 

1.  Autonomy 73,74 

2.  Letters  of  Dismission 71,  72 

3.  Councils 74-76 

A.  Nature  of  Council 74 

(a)  Mutual  council 74 

(6)  Ex-parte  council 74 

B.  Objects  of  Councils 74,75 

(a)  To  constitute  a  church..     74 
(6)  To  ordain  a  minister....     75 

(c)  To  advise 75 

(d)  To  decide  an  issue 75 

C.  Justification  of  Councils...  75 

(a)  Common  interests 75 

(6)  Wider  wisdom 75 

(c)  Security  against   preju- 
dice   75 

{d)  Truth  the  sole  authority     75 

D.  Conclusions 75,76 

(a)  As  to  personnel  of  coun- 
cil      75 

(6)  As  to  letters  missive 75 

(c)  As  to  date  of  ordination    76 


THE  CONSTITUTION 


It  has  pleased  God,  in  his  work  of  redemption,  to  select  a 
body  of  men  to  whom  and  through  whom  he  might  manifest 
himself,  and  by  whom  he  accomplishes  the  work  of  salva- 
tion (John  17:6,  18,  22,  23  ;  Eph.  3  :  10,  11). 

The  primal  fact  which  determines  the  character  of  this 
body  is,  that  it  is  called  by  God  to  this  service  and  function. 
The  Greek  word  xaXeiv  (to  call),  with  its  derivatives  and  com- 
pounds, connotes  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  this  body 
of   men.     We  have  then  : 

I.  KaXei)^ — to  call — the  first  act  (in  time)  of  Christ  in  rela- 
tion to  his  people. 

And  whom  he  predestined,  them  he  also  called  ;  and  whom  he 
called,  them  he  also  justified  ;  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also 
glorified  (Rom.  8  :  30). 

That  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  vessels  of 
mercy,  which  he  before  prepared  unto  glory  ;  whom  he  also  called, 
even  us,  not  from  Jews  only,  but  also  from  Gentiles  (Rom.  9  :  23,  24). 

God  is  faithful,  through  whom  ye  were  called  into  the  fellowship 
of  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  (i  Cor.  i  :  9). 

But  we  ought  to  give  thanks  to  God  always  for  you,  brethren 
beloved  by  the  Lord,  because  God  from  the  beginning  chose  you  to 
salvation,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  ;  where- 
unto  he  called  you  through  our  gospel,  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (2  Thess.  2  :  13,  14). 

But  ye  are  a  chosen  race,  a  kingly  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a 
people  for  a  possession  ;  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  excellencies  of 
him  who  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light  (i  Peter 
2  :9). 

II 


12  THE  CONSTITUTION 

2.  KX7jToi—the  called. 

Among  whom  are  ye  also,  called  to  be  Jesus  Christ's,  to  all  the  be- 
loved of  God  that  are  in  Rome,  called  to  be  saints  :  Grace  to  you  and 
peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  i  :  6,  7). 

And  we  know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  those  who 
love  God,  to  those  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose  (Rom  8  :  28). 

Paul,  called  to  be  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  through  the  will  of  God, 
and  Sosthenes  our  brother,  to  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth, 
those  who  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints  (i  Cor.  i  : 

1.2). 

Jude,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James,  to  the  called, 
beloved  in  God  the  Father,  and  kept  for  Jesus  Christ  (Jude  i). 

3.  KX^at^ — the  calling. 

For  the  gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  not  repented  of  (Rom.  1 1  :  29). 

For  see  your  calling,  brethren,  that  not  many  are  wise  after  the  flesh, 
not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  (i  Cor,  i  :  26.) 

The  eyes  of  your  heart  being  enlightened  ;  that  ye  may  know  what 
is  the  hope  of  his  calling,  what  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inher- 
itance in  the  saints  (Eph.  i  :  18). 

I  therefore,  the  prisoner  in  the  Lord,  e.xhort  you  to  walk  worthy  of 
the  calling  with  which  ye  were  called  (Eph.  4:1). 

There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  as  also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope 
of  your  calling  (Eph.  4  :  4). 

4.  IlapdxXtjroq — the  in-forming  and  indwelling  Spirit  in  the 
xXT,Toi — the  Holy  Spirit. 

And  I  will  ask  of  the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you  another  Advocate, 
that  he  may  be  with  you  forever,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  whom  the  world 
cannot  receive,  because  it  beholds  him  not,  neither  knows  him  ;  ye  know 
him,  because  he  abides  with  you,  and  will  be  in  you  (John  14  :  16,  17). 

But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  indeed  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwells  in  you.  And  if  any  man  has  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he 
is  none  of  his  (Rom.  8  :  9). 

And  if  the  Spirit  of  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwells 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  I3 

in  you,  he  who  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  will  make  alive  your 
mortal  bodies  also,  because  of  his  Spirit  that  dwells  in  you  (Rom.  8:11). 

Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  God's  temple,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells  in  you?  (i  Cor.  3  :  16.) 

In  whom  ye  also  are  being  builded  together  into  a  habitation  of  God 
in  the  Spirit  (Eph.    2  :  22). 

5.  EntxaXeTv — the  distinctive  act  of  the  xXrjxoi — to  call  on, 
invoke  Christ. 

Paul,  called  to  be  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  through  the  will  of  God, 
and  Sosthenes  our  brother,  to  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth, 
those  who  are  sanctified  in  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all 
that  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  every  place,  theirs 
and  ours  (i  Cor.  i  :  i,  2). 

If  thou  confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  believe  in  thy 
heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For 
the  same  one  is  Lord  of  all,  rich  toward  all  that  call  on  him  ;  for  every 
one  who  calls  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  will  be  saved  (Rom.  10  :  9,  13). 

And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise,  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away 
thy  sins,  calling  on  his  name  (Acts  22  :  16). 

And  here  he  has  authority  from  the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  call 
on  thy  name  (Acts  9  :  14). 

And  all  that  heard  him  were  amazed,  and  said,  Is  not  this  he  who 
destroyed  in  Jerusalem  those  who  call  on  this  name .-'  and  had  come 
hither  for  this  purpose,  that  he  might  bring  them  bound  to  the  chief 
priests  (Acts  9  :  21). 

And  the  witnesses  laid  down  their  garments  at  the  feet  of  a  young 
man  named  Saul,  and  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  and  saying.  Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit  (Acts  7  :  58,  59). 

6.  UapaxaXeJv — the  act  of  the  xkTjToi  toward  one  another — to 
call  to,  exhort,  strengjthen. 

But  exhort  one  another  daily,  as  long  as  it  is  called  To-day,  that  no 
one  of  you  may  be  hardened  through  the  deceitfulness  of  sin  (Heb. 

3  :  13)- 

Not  forsaking  the  gathering  of  ourselves  together,  as  is  the  custom 


14  THE  CONSTITUTION 

of  some,  but  exhorting,  and  so  much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  day  ap- 
proaching (Heb.   ID  :  25). 

And  sent  Timothy,  our  brother,  and  a  minister  of  God  in  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  to  establish  you,  and  to  exhort  you  concerning  your  faith 
(i  Thess.  3  :  2). 

As  ye  know  how  we  dealt  with  each  one  of  you,  as  a  father  with  his 
own  children,  exhorting  you,  and  encouraging  you,  and  testifying,  that 
ye  should  walk  worthy  of  God,  who  is  calling  you  into  h".s  kingdom  and  , 
glory  (i  Thess.  2  :  11,   12).  * 

7.  ExxXrjffia — the  company,  body,  organism  of  the  xXrjToi — 
the  church. 

Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall 
not  prevail  against  it  (Matt.  16  :  18). 

And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  to  the  church  ;  and  if  he  neg- 
lect to  hear  the  church  also,  let  him  be  to  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the 
publican  (Matt.  18  :  17). 

It  is  with  this  latter  word  that  we  have  to  do  in  Church 
Polity.  It  is  found  (i)  in  the  classics;  (2)  in  the  Septuagint ; 
(3)  in  the  New  Testament.  Let  us  examine  its  meaning  in 
each  of  these : 

I.  An  investigation  of  its  classical  usage,  shows  that 
Ecclesia — a  Greek  Ecclesia — is  an  assembly  of  free  persons, 
called  out  by  legitimate  authority  from  a  larger  mass  of 
people  ;  summoned  for  the  transaction  of  public  business  ; 
equal  in  membership,  privileges,  and  rights  ;  sovereign  and 
supreme  in  its  own  domain. 

The  Grecian  States,  with  few  exceptions,  were  cities  with  their  dis- 
tricts, and  their  constitutions  therefore  the  constitutions  of  cities  ;  the 
Greeks  designate  the  idea  of  State  and  city  by  the  same  word.  Great 
as  the  variety  in  the  constitutions  may  have  been,  they  all  coincided  in 
one  grand  point  ;  they  were  all  free  institutions  ;  /.  e.,  they  allowed  of 
no  rulers  whom  the  people  as  a  body,  or  certain  classes  of  the  people, 
could  not  call  to  account ;  he  who  usurped  such  authority  was  in  the 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  15 

language  of  the  Greeks  a  tyrant.  In  this  the  idea  is  contained  that 
the  State  shall  govern  itself,  and  not  be  governed  by  an  individual,  and 
of  course  a  very  different  idea  of  the  State  was  taken  from  the  modern 
European  notion. — HeererU s  "  Researches  on  Ancient  Greece,"  pp. 
156,  157. 

The  will  of  the  sovereign  people  was  expressed  in  the  ecclesia. 
Here  were  brought  before  them  all  matters,  which,  as  the  supreme 
power  of  the  State,  they  had  to  order  or  dispose  of.  Indeed,  there  was 
no  question  which  could  not  ultimately  be  dealt  with  by  the  assembled 
people,  if  they  chose  to  exert  their  plenary  authority. — Kennedy's 
"  Demosthenes,"  pp.  349,  350, 

The  inhabitants  of  a  city  and  the  members  of  the  ecclesia 
were  not  the  same.  Membership  was  founded  sometimes  on 
birth,  sometimes  on  property,  sometimes  on  residence,  but 
the  rights  of  citizenship  were  always  defined  and  guarded 
with  great  exactness,  and  the  regulations  regarding  citizen- 
ship were  very  strict.  The  ecclesia,  though  under  different 
regulations  in  different  places,  was  an  essential  institution  in 
Greek  polity,  and  probably  existed  in  every  city. 

The  selection  of  Greek  words,  and  not  Hebrew,  to  desig- 
nate the  new  organism,  its  work  and  its  officers — church,  bap- 
tize, apostle,  communion,  bishop,  etc. — is  very  significant  in 
its  relation  to  the  question  whether  the  church  is  the  con- 
tinuation of  any  Jewish  institution.  It  is  also  significant  in 
its  intimations  of  the  character  and  relation  of  the  ecclesia. 
Until  the  rejection  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  by  the  Jews, 
the  words  pertaining  to  the  Messianic  dispensation  are  all  of 
Hebrew  origin  ;  when  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  taken  from 
them  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof, 
all  the  words  "  descriptive  of  polity  derived  from  Abrahamic 
or  Mosaic  customs  or  institutions  "  are  discarded,  and  words 
and  customs  adopted  derived  not  from  kingly  but  from  demo- 
cratic forms  of  government.     So  closely  was  the  Christian 


1 6  THE  CONSTITUTION 

ecclesia  allied  to  the  Greek  that  the  early  Christian  houses 
of  worship  were  modeled,  not  after  the  temple  but  the 
basilica,  the  market-place,  and  hall  of  justice. 

The  basilica  for  the  most  part  was  a  parallelogram,  at  one  of  the 
shorter  sides  of  which,  opposite  to  the  entrance,  there  was  a  raised 
platform  destined  for  the  accommodation  of  the  persons  engaged  in 
and  connected  with  the  distribution  of  justice.  This  portion  of  the 
building  was  the  prototype  of  the  rounded  choir,  to  which  the  name  of 
apse  was  given,  and  which  is  still  to  be  seen  in  many  churches. — 
• '  Chambers'  Cyclopcedia . ' ' 

2.  What  light  does  the  Septuagint  throw  on  the  word  ? 
It  is  found  in  the  LXX  seventy-four  times,  and  is  always 
used  as  the  translation  of  Ka/ta/,  which  means  in  the  Hiphil 
to  call  together ;  no  other  word  (Hebrew)  is  so  translated. 
KaJial  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  one  hundred  and 
twenty-four  times,  translated  seventy-four  times  ecclesia,  forty- 
seven  times  simagogee,  Vn'xcq  pleethos,  and  once  siinedrion. 

Vitringa  says  that  siinagogcc  always  means  an  assembly 
gathered  together,  but  not  necessarily  joined  by  any  bond  of 
union  :  ecclesia  [kalial)  always  denotes  some  multitude  which 
constitutes  a  people  bound  among  themselves  by  laws  and 
obligations  ;  but  this  distinction  must  not  be  forced.  Sima- 
gogee "  signifies  simply  an  assembly  without  any  reference 
to  the  character  or  motives  of  the  individuals  assembled.  It 
is  applied  to  the  rebellious  company  that  followed  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram.  Ecclesia  always  conveys  some  idea  of 
the  nature  of  the  assembly — the  Hebrew  Kahal  denotes  an 
assembly  legally  warned — the  Jewish  people  when  assembled 
as  a  body  politic  to  receive  the  law"  (Deut.  9  :  lo  ;  Acts  7  : 
38V 

»  Jv^aywyij  is  used  one  hundred  and  thirty  times  for  H^^.  where  the  prominent 
idea  is  that  of  an  appointed  meeting,  and  twenty-five  times  for  /HD,  a  meeting 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  17 

3.  The  New  Testament   use  of  the  word. 

In  the  Common  Version,  with  three  exceptions  (Acts  19  : 
32,  39,  41),  it  is  everywhere  translated  "church."  In  one  in- 
stance (Acts  19  :  T,y\  the  English  word  "church  "  is  found 
where  "  ecclesia  "  is  not  in  the  original. 

When  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  a  Jewish  assembly 
(Acts  7  :  38),  ecclesia  always  means  an  assembly  convened  for 
a  particular  purpose,  never  a  permanent  body.  This  latter 
is    "the  nation,"  "Israel,"  "Children  of  Israel,"  etc. 

Our  Lord  uses  ecclesia  twice;  once  (Matt.  16  :  18),  to  de- 
note the  whole  body  of  true  Christians,  and  once  (18  :  17),  to 
denote  a  local,  individual  body — a  visible  organization.  These 
are  the  two  senses  of  the  word. 

(i)  The  whole  body  of  believers  in  Christ,  from  the  day  of 
Pentecost  to  the  end  of  the  dispensation.  The  church  in 
this  sense  is  viewed  in  the  New  Testament  in  two  aspects — 
one  from  the  point  of  view  of  time,  (Matt.  16  :  18),  the  other 
from  the  point  of  view  of  eternity  (Eph.  3  :  9,  10,  11). 

Our  Lord,  rejected  by  the  Jewish  nation,  declares  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to  a  nation 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.  He  asserts  his  purpose  to 
gather  a  church,  a  select  body  called  out  from  the  world, 
composed  of  those  to  whom  Christ  is  revealed  by  the  Father  ; 
he  asserts  that  this  church  shall  not  be  dissolved  by  death, 
and  that  to  it  shall  be  given  the  kingdom.  The  members  of 
this  church  were  given  to  Christ  by  the  Father ;  they  are 

called  together  and  therefore  more  commonly  translated  in  LXX  by  iKKKijaia.. 
— Smith' s  "Bible  Dictionary,^'  art.  Synagogue. 

In  Genesis,  Exodus,  Lycviticus,  Numbers, 7np  is  translated  by  wvayayri;  in  Deu- 
teronomy and  the  following  books  to  Nehemiah  inclusive  (fifty-six  times  in  all), 
with  only  the  exception  of  Deut.  5  :  22,  it  is  translated  by  «/eXj)<ria — Hatch's 
"Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,"  p.  21. 


l8  THE  CONSTITUTION 

gathered  out  of  all  nations  ;  they  are  regenerated  and  sanc- 
tified by  the  truth  ;  the  church  shall  be  presented  at  the  last 
without  spot  or  blemish.  It  differs  radically  and  generically 
from  all  other  organizations  ;  its  principle  of  union  is  un- 
known to  them ;  it  recognizes  none  of  their  divisions  or  dis- 
tinctions. In  it  all  national  peculiarities,  all  diversities  of 
birth,  culture,  social  position,  or  possessions  are  swallowed  up. 
It  is  not  a  development  of  the  moral,  religious,  or  social ' 
nature  of  man  ;  it  is  not  a  product  of  the  human  intellect  ; 
it  is  not  a  school  of  opinion,  nor  a  voluntary  association  of 
persons  of  similar  tastes  or  pursuits.  It  is  a  supernatural 
and  vital  union,  a  new  creation,  a  divine  organism. 

Therefore  I  say  to  you,  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof  (Matt. 

21  :  43)- 

But  ye  are  a  chosen  race,  a  kingly  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  people 
for  a  possession  ;  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  excellencies  of  him  who 
called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light ;  who  once  were 
not  a  people,  but  are  now  God's  people  ;  who  had  not  obtained  mercy, 
but  now  have  obtained  mercy  (i  Peter  2  :  9,  10). 

And  Simon  Peter  answering  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  And  Jesus  answering  said  to  him,  Happy  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar-jonah  ;  for  flesh  and  blood  did  not  reveal  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father 
who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  also  say  to  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not 
prevail  against  it  (Matt.  16  :  16-18). 

Fear  not,  little  flock  ;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give 
you  the  kingdom  (Luke  12  :  32). 

The  church  thus  chosen  and  characterized,  holding  this 
unique  relation  to  Christ,  has  unique  oflfices  and  associations. 
It  performs  the  same  oflfices  in  the  world  which  Christ  per- 
formed ;  it  is  associated  with  him  in  his  humiliation  and  re- 
jection ;  it  has  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings  and  is  con- 


THK   NEW   TESTAMENT   CHURCH  IQ 

formed  to  his  death  ;  and  being  thus  identified  with  his  suf 
ferings  shall  share  his  glory  when  he  is  revealed. 

As  thou  didst  send  me  into  the  world,  I  also  sent  them  into  the 
world  (John  17  :  18). 

And  if  children,  also  heirs;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ; 
if  indeed  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  also  be  glorified  with  him 
(Rom.  8  :  17). 

The  church  is  the  body  of  Christ.  The  relation  of  the 
church  to  its  Head  is  not  merely  a  federal  or  representative, 
or  moral  or  ethical,  but  a  "vital,  real,  and  essential  one,  of 
which  the  human  body  is  a  figure.  There  is  between  the 
head  and  the  body,  unity  of  life,  of  spirit,  of  nature,  and  the 
head  inspires,  rules,  directs,  sustains."  The  church  is  an  or- 
ganic unity.  "  It  is  no  abstract  generalization — it  is  a  con- 
crete reality ;  it  is  no  mere  name  for  the  aggregate  of  indi- 
viduals— it  is  that  which,  including  individuals,  supercedes 
their  individuality,  holds  them  in  a  new  relation,  and  gifts 
them  with  a  new  condition."  The  union  is  so  intimate  and 
essential,  the  identity  so  complete,  that  the  church  is  called 
Christ — not  Christ  in  his  distinct  personality,  but  as  includ- 
ing the  church  in  himself  as  his  living  organism.  Paul,  in 
Ephesians  5  :  30,  declares  that  we  are  members  of  his  body, 
of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  Ellicott  calls  attention  to  the 
emphatic  position  of  [j.i^ — members,  "  not  accidental,  but  in- 
tegral parts  of  his  body."  "Our  real  spiritual  being  and 
existence  is  as  truly,  as  certainly,  and  as  actually  a  true  native 
extract  from  his  own  body,  as  was  the  physical  derivation 
of  Eve  from  Adam." 

So  we,  the  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  severally  members  one 
of  another  (Rom.  12  :  5). 

And  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his 
body,  the  fulness  of  him  who  fills  all  in  all  (Eph.  i  :  22,  23). 


20  THE  CONSTITUTION 

But  speaking  the  truth,  may  in  love  grow  up  in  all  things  into  him, 
who  is  the  head,  Christ;  from  whom  all  the  body,  fitly  framed  together 
and  compacted  by  means  of  every  joint  of  the  supply,  according  to  the 
working  of  each  single  part  in  its  measure,  is  effecting  the  increase  of 
the  body  to  the  upbuilding  of  itself  in  love  (Eph.  4  :  15,  16). 

And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church;  who  is  the  beginning, 
the  first-born  from  the  dead;  in  order  that  he  may  become  in  all  things 
pre-eminent  (Col.  i  :  18). 

For  as  the  body  is  one  and  has  many  members,  and  all  the  members 
of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ  (i  Cor.  12  : 
12). 

The  church  is  the  bride  of  Christ  (Rom.  7  :  4  ;  2  Cor. 
11:2;  Eph.  5  :  25-30  ;  Rev.  21:2,  9).  This  relation  is 
unique :  it  can  exist  with  but  one  person ;  it  is  an  affection 
which  dominates  all  others;  it  is  the  product  of  choice  and 
intelligence ;  and  it  brings  a  community  of  interest  and 
destiny. 

Wherefore  my  brethren,  ye  also  were  made  dead  to  the  law  through 
the  body  of  Christ,  that  ye  might  be  married  to  another,  to  him  who 
was  raised  from  the  dead,  in  order  that  we  might  bring  forth  fruit  to 
God  (Rom.  7  :  4). 

For  I  am  jealous  over  you  with  a  godly  jealousy;  for  1  betrothed  you 
to  one  husband,  that  I  may  present  you  a  pure  virgin  to  Christ  (2  Cor. 
11:2). 

So  husbands  ought  to  love  their  own  wives  as  their  own  bodies.  He 
that  loves  his  own  wife  loves  himself.  For  no  one  ever  hated  his  own 
flesh;  but  nourishes  and  cherishes  it,  even  as  Christ  the  church;  be- 
cause we  are  members  of  his  body.  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  the  two  shall  be 
one  flesh.  This  mystery  is  great;  but  I  am  speaking  of  Christ  and  of 
the  church  (Eph.  5  :  28-32). 

The  church  is  Christ's  temple  ;  his  habitation  ;  his  chosen 
dwelling  place,  where  God  reveals  his  presence,  is  worshiped, 
and  bestows  his  blessing. 


The  new  testament  church  21 

Having  been  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Christ  Jesus  himself  being  the  chief  cornerstone  ;  in  whom  every  build- 
ing, fitly  framed  together,  is  growing  into  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord  ;  in 
whom  ye  also  are  being  builded  together  into  a  habitation  of  God  in  the 
Spirit  (Eph.  2  :  20-22). 

Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  God's  temple,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells  in  you  ?  If  any  one  destroys  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God 
destroy;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  and  that  ye  are  (i  Cor.  3  :  16,  17). 

To  whom  coming,  a  living  stone,  rejected  indeed  by  men,  but  with 
God  chosen,  precious,  ye  yourselves  also,  as  living  stones,  are  being 
built  up  a  spiritual  house,  to  be  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ  (i  Peter  2  :  4,  5). 

It  is  the  fullness  of  him  who  filleth  all  in  all ;  that  which 
is  filled  up  by  Christ ;  "  the  receptacle  of  all  the  gifts,  graces, 
and  blessings  of  Christ." 

And  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his 
body,  the  fulness  of  him  who  fills  all  in  all  (Eph.  i  :  22,  23). 

It  is  the  organic  actualization  of  the  divine  life  ;  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth  ;  the  representative  of  Christ  in  the 
world  ;  it  holds  peculiar  relations  to  other  orders  of  beings 
and  to  the  universe,  and  is  to  be  the  grandest  manifestation 
of  the  noblest  of  the  divine  perfections  to  future  ages. 

In  order  that  now,  to  the  rulers  and  authorities  in  the  heavenly  realms 
might  be  made  known  through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of 
God,  according  to  the  purpose  of  the  ages  which  he  purposed  in  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord  (Eph.  3  :  10,  11). 

This  body  is  not  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a 
mystery,  a  revelation  of  the  New  Testament. 

Now  to  him  who  is  able  to  establish  you,  according  to  my  gospel  and 
the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  revelation  of  the  mys- 
tery kept  in  silence  during  eternal  ages  but  now  made  manifest,  and 


22  ^HE  CONS'TITUTION 

through  prophetic  scriptures,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
eternal  God,  made  known  to  all  nations  for  obedience  to  the  faith,  to 
God  only  wise,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  the  glory  forever 
(Rom.  i6  :  25-27). 

And  to  make  all  see  what  is  the  stewardship  of  the  mystery,  which 
from  ages  has  been  hidden  in  God,  who  created  all  things  (Eph.  3  :  9). 

Whereby  ye  can,  when  ye  read,  perceive  my  insight  in  the  mystery 
of  Christ,  which  in  other  generations  was  not  made  known  to  the  sons 
of  men,  as  it  has  now  been  revealed  to  his  holy  apostles  and  prophets 
in  the  Spirit;  that  the  Gentiles  are  fellow-heirs,  and  members  of  the 
same  body,  and  joint  partakers  with  us  of  the  promise  in  Christ  Jesus 
through  the  gospel  (Eph.  3  :  4-6). 

His  body,  which  is  the  church  ;  of  which  I  became  a  minister,  ac- 
cording to  the  stewardship  of  God  which  was  given  to  me  for  you,  to 
fulfil  the  word  of  God,  the  mystery  which  has  been  hidden  from  ages 
and  from  generations;  but  now  it  has  been  manifested  to  his  saints,  to 
whom  God  willed  to  make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of 
this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of 
glory  (Col.  I  :  24-27). 

(2)  A  body  of  professed  believers  in  Christ,  baptized  on  a 
credible  confession  of  faith  in  him,  associated  for  worship, 
work,  and  discipline  (Matt.  18  :  17  ;  Acts  14:23;  16:5;  i 
Cor.  4:17;  Rev.  2  and  3). 

It  is  not  essential  to  the  definition  of  a  church  that  its 
members  should  meet  in  one  place  for  worship.  There  may 
be  different  congregations  constituting  one  church.  This  is 
'  often  a  matter  of  convenience,  sometimes  of  necessity,  espe- 
cially in  a  sparsely  settled  country.  There  are  some  intima- 
tions in  the  New  Testament,  that  in  the  time  of  the  apostles 
the  Christians  in  a  city  constituted  one  church.  Whenever 
a  district  or  province  is  spoken  of,  after  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles,  as  Gentiles,  into  the  church,  the  word  is  always  in 
the  plural  :  the  churches  of  Galatia  (Gal.  1:2);  Judea  (Gal. 
I  :  22)  ;  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  8:1);  Asia  (i  Cor.  16:19).     The 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CHURCH  2^ 

singular  is  never  used  of  a  country  or  nation,  the  plural  is 
never  used  of  a  city  or  town.  A  church  is  never  spoken  of 
as  the  church  of  any  city  or  town,  but  always  as  the  church 
in  or  at  the  place,  or  else  of  the  Christian  inhabitants  of  the 
town  or  city  :  the  church  which  was  at  Jerusalem  ^Acts  8  : 
I  ;  II  :  22);  the  church  that  was  in  Antioch  (Acts  13  :  i); 
the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth  (i  Cor.  i  :  2  ;  2  Cor. 
I  :  i)  ;  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians  (i  Thess.  1:1); 
the  church  of  the  Laodiceans  (Rev,  3  :  14).  Rev.  2  :  i,  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  is  an  apparent  exception,  but  the 
true  reading  is  "  in  "  Ephesus. 


It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  English  word  "church," 
like  all  other  words,  is  not  always  employed  in  the  same  ab- 
solute sense.  In  this  respect  it  follows  the  universal  laws  of 
language.  The  precise  meaning  in  any  given  sentence  must 
be  determined  from  its  connection.  If  one  is  giving  the  defi- 
nition of  a  church  constituted  according  to  the  requirements 
of  the  New  Testament,  he  is  compelled  to  adhere  closely  to 
one  exclusive  signification  of  the  word.  It  would  be  con- 
trary to  the  usage  of  every  other  word  to  restrict  ourselves 
to  this  single  meaning  in  every  case.  We  have  seen  that  it 
may  rightly  be  used  in  the  two  senses  already  noted  ;  it  may 
also  designate  that  portion  of  a  local  church  meeting  ordi- 
narily in  any  particular  place  (Rom.  16  :  5);  it  is  perfectly 
proper  to  use  it  to  denote  the  house  in  which  the  body  is  ac- 
customed to  assemble,  as  "synagogue"  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment means  the  house  (Matt.  12  :  g),  and  also  the  assembly 
meeting  in  the  house  (Acts  13  143);  as  the  word  "bank" 
designates  sometimes  the  corporation,  sometimes  the  building 
in  which  the  business  is  transacted.     In  the  same  manner  in 


24  THE  CONSTITUTION 

which  we  employ  the  word  "church,"  now  to  designate  the 
universal  body,  now  to  designate  a  particular  body,  so  we  use 
the  word  "  race, "  now  to  designate  the  whole  human  race, 
now  to  designate  some  of  the  branches  of  the  human  family, 
as  the  Caucasian  race,  etc. 

Nor  should  we  refuse  religious  bodies  that  are  not  or- 
ganized according  to  the  laws  of  the  New  Testament 
the  name  of  churches.  In  ordinary  English  discourse  we 
must  use  English  words  in  their  recognized  sense ;  to  refuse 
is  simply  to  debar  ourselves  from  all  ordinary  intercourse 
with  our  fellow-men.  When  we  speak  of  Unitarians,  we  do 
not  assert  their  scriptural  right  to  that  designation.  We 
must  speak  of  the  Congregational  body,  but  there  are  other 
congregational  sects  besides  the  one  which  appropriates  that 
title.  There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God,  but  we  apply 
the  term  god  to  false  divinities,  and  the  Scripture  sanctions 
the  usage. 

What  is  true  of  the  church  in  its  larger  sense  is  true  of 
the  local  body,  just  so  far  as  the  circumstances  will  allow,  and 
just  so  far  as  the  smaller  body  possesses  the  essential  char- 
acteristics of  the  larger  (i  Cor,  6  :  19;  12  :  27;  2  Cor.  11  : 
2  ;  Eph.  2  :  21). 


Let  us  now  examine  the  definition  of  a  church  in  detail : 
First.  A  church  organized  after  the  pattern  of  the  New 
Testament   is  composed   of   professed    believers    in   Christ. 
This  is  evident — 

I .   From  the  direct  statements  of  the  New  Testament : 
(a)  The  herald   of   the    kingdom,   John   the  Baptist,    an- 
nounces as  the  requisites  for  a  place  in  the  new  dispensation 
two  qualifications  :  First,  a  personal  character  as  distinguished 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  2$ 

from  a  claim  resting  on  hereditary  descent ;  second,  the  pro- 
duction of  credible  evidence  of  the  possession  of  such  a  quali- 
fication (Matt.  3  :  7,  8,  9). 

(b)  The  nature  of  the  church  (Matt.  16  :  18).  The  prin- 
ciple of  selection  on  which  the  new  body  is  to  be  formed  is 
declared  by  Christ  to  be  the  divinely  revealed  knowledge  of 
Christ,  All  those  to  whom  God  makes  Christ  known  are  to 
constitute  the  church.  The  rock  on  which  the  church  is 
founded  has  thus  a  vital  relation,  and  not  an  arbitrary  one ;  it 
has  a  perpetual  relation,  and  not  a  temporary  one ;  it  has  a 
universal  relation,  and  not  a  local  or  limited  one.  In  other 
words,  the  foundation  of  the  church  holds  as  close  and  inti- 
mate relation  to  any  one  member  of  the  church,  anywhere,  in 
any  age,  as  to  any  other  member,  at  any  other  place  or  time. 

(c)  The  office  and  relations  of  the  church  (Matt,  5  :  13,  14  ; 
John  17  :  18;  I  Cor.  3  -.9-17;  Eph.  2  :  19-22  ;  Phil.  2:15,  16), 

(d)  The  characteristics  of  the  members  of  a  church  (i  Cor. 
1:2;  Phil.  1:1;  Gal.  3  :  24  ;  Col.  3  :  2). 

2.  From  the  example  of  the  apostles  : 

(a)  The  course  they  pursued  in  the  additions  made  to  the 
church  (Acts  2  :  41-47). 

(d)  The  directions  they  gave  (Acts  2  :  38  ;  i  Cor.  3  : 
10-15). 

(c)  There  is  no  account  in  the  Scripture  of  the  admission 
to  the  privileges  of  the  church  of  any  but  professed  believers, 

3.  The  unavoidable  inferences  from  the  elemental  Scripture 
principles  : 

(a)  The  Scripture  conception  of  the  work  which  Christ  is 
now  doing  (Eph.  2  :  19-22  ;  4  :  16), 

(^)  The  declared  distinction  between  the  church  and  the 
world  (2  Cor.  6  :  14-18  ;  Eph.  5:11;  Gal.  1:4;!  John  5  : 
19;  2  John  10,  11). 


26  THE  CONSTITUTION 

(c)  There  is  no  address  in  the  New  Testament  to  any  un- 
converted church-members  as  a  class — to  baptized  children, 
not  yet  communicants. 

Second.  A  church  organized  on  the  principles  of  the  New 
Testament  is  composed  of  persons  baptized.     This  is  shown — 

1.  From  the  command  of  Christ  (Matt.  28  :  18-20;  Mark 
16  :  15,  16). 

2.  The  direction  given  to  the  apostles  (Acts  2  :  38). 

3.  The  example  of  the  apostles  (Acts  2  :  41  ;  10  :  48 ;  16  : 
14,  15;   16  :  31,  34;   18  :  8). 

4.  Necessary  inferences  :  baptism  is  the  recognized  method 
of  confessing  Christ.  No  one  could  be  a  member  of  a  church 
without  making  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  and  attach- 
ment to  him ;  there  was  no  method  appointed  for  this  but 
baptism. 

5.  The  references  to  baptism  are  of  such  a  nature  that 
they  cannot  be  explained  except  on  the  supposition  that  all 
the  Christians  addressed  in  the  epistles  had  been  baptized  on 
a  confession  of  faith  in  Christ  (Rom.  6  :  1-6;  Col.  2  :  12; 
Gal.  3  :  26,  27  ;   i  Peter  3  :  21). 

Third.  On  a  credible  confession  of  faith  in  Christ.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  church,  as  we  have  defined  it,  is 
a  church  of  Christ — a  Christian  church.  It  is  not  composed 
of  those  who  believe  in  God,  but  of  those  who  believe  in 
Christ.  This  belief  is  avowed  in  baptism.  It  must  be  a 
credible  belief.  More  than  this  can  neither  be  given 
nor  required.  A  believer  cannot  produce  his  inward  be- 
lief for  inspection  and  examination  :  he  can  do  no  more 
than  produce  evidence  of  its  existence.  No  person  can 
see  the  belief  of  another  or  be  absolutely  conscious  of  its 


'THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  ^7 

existence.  The  most  that  is  possible  is  to  examine  the 
evidence  and  determine  accordingly.  This  must  be  done 
by  those  who  are  the  custodians  of  the  rite,  and  who  are 
responsible  for  its  administration. 

1.  This  is  shown  by  the  scriptural  account  of  its  first  ad- 
ministration. John  the  Baptist  demanded  of  those  who 
sought  baptism  at  his  hands  proof  that  they  had  repented 
(Matt.  3  : 6-9) ;  and  when  they  would  not  comply  with  his 
requirement,  he  refused  to  baptize  them  (Luke  7  :  30). 

2.  From  the  nature  of  baptism,  which  requires  the  concur- 
rence of  two  persons,  the  one  who  is  called  to  baptize  must 
necessarily  have  the  power  to  refuse,  otherwise  he  might  be 
compelled  to  administer  the  ordinance  to  the  avowed  scoffer 
or  profane  (Matt.  7  :  6). 

Fourth.  Associated  for  worship,  work,  and  discipline.  In 
strictness  it  would  be  sufficient  to  say  worship,  as  this  really 
includes  work  and  discipline.  The  three  are  specially 
mentioned,  because  in  the  ordinary  conception  they  are  dis- 
tinct. 

Worship  expresses  in  appropriate  forms  the  Christian  life, 
conceptions,  and  emotions,  by  the  ordinances,  by  speech, 
by  offerings  (Rom.  12:1-3;   i  Pet.  2  :  5). 

THE   ORDINANCES. 

In  studying  the  New  Testament  account  of  the  church,  we 
find,  besides  moral  duties,  certain  acts  commanded  by  its 
Founder,  significant  of  certain  truths  enjoined  on  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church.     Such  acts  are  called  ordinances. 

An  ordinance  is  an  outward  institution,  appointed  by 
Christ,  by  positive  precept,  to  be  observed  by  all  his  people 
to  the  end  of  the  age,  commemorating  an  essential  gospel 


28  1*HE  CONSTITUTION 

fact  and  declaring  an  essential  gospel  truth.  Of  these  there 
are  two,  Baptism  and  the  Communion — the  initiation  and  con- 
summation of  the  Christian  life.  These  ordinances  are  the 
gospel  in  symbol  :  they  commemorate,  declare,  and  typically 
embody  the  whole  Christian  system  (i  Cor.  15  :  1-5),  They 
are  the  true  symbols  of  Christianity,  divinely  appointed  and 
all-sufficient. 

These  are  positive  institutions  :  positive  institutions  differ 
from  moral  duties. 

(a)  In  their  nature.  Moral  duties  are  intrinsically  holy — 
they  are  commanded  because  they  are  right ;  positive  insti- 
tutions are  right  because  they  are  commanded.  They  are 
not  only  of  no  obligation  in  themselves,  but  if  they  were  not 
enjoined,  their  performance  as  religious  acts  would  be  wrong. 

(^)  In  the  method  of  ascertaining  their  existence.  Moral 
duties  are  deduced  from  principles  :  positive  institutions  re- 
quire a  precept. 

(c)  In  their  extent.  The  former  are  binding  on  all  moral 
beings  ;  the  latter  on  particular  persons. 

(d)  In  their  duration.  The  former  are  of  eternal  obliga- 
tion ;  the  latter  are  temporary. 

The  moral  exists  always  before  the  positive ;  the  positive 
in  consequence  of  the  moral,  and  by  means  of  it. 

Positive  institutions  are  the  fittest  tests  of  obedience. 
Obedience  to  them  springs  from  no  conception  of  inherent 
fitness,  but  from  submission  to  the  will  of  the  lawgiver. 
The  infancy  of  a  race  or  an  individual  must  learn  its  first 
lesson  here. 

The  greatest  calamities  have  been  incurred  in  consequence 
of  disobedience  to  positiv^e  commandment ;  the  greatest 
blessings  have  come  in  consequence  of  obedience  to  positive 
ordinances. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  29 

Moral  duties  require  for  acceptable  performance  moral  fit- 
ness only  ;  positive  institutions  require  positive  qualifications 
in  addition  to  moral.' 

I.    BAPTISM. 

The  first  ordinance  of  the  Christian  church  is  Baptism. 

1.  The  rite  was  commanded  by  Christ. 

2.  It  is  of  permanent  obligation  ;  it  runs  to  the  end  of  the 
dispensation  ;  no  power  is  given  to  any  one  to  repeal  it ;  and 
no  hint  is  anywhere  given  that  it  will  ever  cease. 

3.  It  commemorates  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

4.  It  symbolizes  the  death  of  the  Christian  to  his  old  life, 
and  his  entrance  on  a  new  life,  with  all  that  is  included  in 
these  two  truths — the  confession  of  utter  sinfulness,  of  de- 
served condemnation,  the  utter  helplessness  of  any  change 
short  of  a  new  creation,  the  radical  separation  of  the  old  life 
and  the  new,  the  union  with  Christ,  the  source  of  the  new 
life,  etc. 

It  is  the  believer's  acceptance  of  the  terms  of  salvation, 
his  confession  of  repentance  and  faith :  Godward,  it  is  the 
declaration  of  forgiveness  ;  manward,  it  is  the  declaration  of 
faith  in  Christ. 

And  Jesus  came  to  them  and  spoke  to  them,  saying,  All 
authority  was  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go 
therefore,  and  disciple  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatever  I  commanded 
you  :  and,  behold,  I  am  with  you  always,  unto  the  end  of  the 
age  (Matt.  28  :  18-20). 

And  he  said  to  them,  Go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  whole  creation.  He  that  believes  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  disbelieves  shall  be  con- 
demned (Mark  16  :  15,  16). 

1  Butler's  "  Analogy,"  part  II.,  chap,  i,  pp.  225,  229. 


30  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Are  ye  ignorant,  that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ 
Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  We  were  buried  there- 
fore with  him  through  the  baptism  into  his  death  ;  that  just 
as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life  (Rom.  6  : 

3.  4). 

Having  been  buried  with  him  in  your  baptism,  wherein  ye 
were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the  working  of 
God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead  (Col.  2  :  12). 

Which  in  an  antitype,  baptism,  now  saves  you  also  (not 
the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  require- 
ment of  a  good  conscience  toward  God),  through  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  (i  Peter  3  :  21). 

5.  Baptism  is  immersion  in  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trin- 
ity, on  a  confession  of  faith  in  Christ,  That  it  is  immersion 
is  shown  : 

1 .  By  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  in  the  classics.  In 
this  all  standard  lexicographers  agree. 

2.  By  its  meaning  in  the  New  Testament ;  its  signification 
here  can  be  seen  from  the  prepositions  by  which  it  is  accom- 
panied, and  from  the  impossibility  of  translating  it  by  an 
English  word  which  means  "to  sprinkle"  or  "to  pour." 

3.  By  the  figurative  allusions  ;  rather  by  the  figures  applied 
to  baptism,  and  allusions  to  the  rite.  These  can  be  inter- 
preted consistently  only  on  the  supposition  that  in  the  times 
of  the  apostles  immersion  was  the  universal  practice  (Rom. 
6  :  1-6). 

4.  By  what  it  commemorates — the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  the  founder  of  the  Christian  faith. 

5.  By  its  symbolism  and  design. 

6.  By  the  practice  or  acknowledgment  of  the  majority  of 
Christendom.  The  Eastern  Church  has  always  practised 
immersion,  the   Roman    Catholic   declares    that   it   was  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  3I 

primitive  practice,  that  the  church  has  rightfully  changed  it, 
and  the  best  scholars  of  all  creeds  are  united  in  the  assertion 
that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
and  that  the  Greek  word  means  to  immerse, 

TO    WHOM    SHALL    BAPTISM    BE    ADMINISTERED  ? 

Baptism  is  to  be  administered  to  those  only  who  make  a 
credible  confession  of  faith  in  Christ. 

1.  The  command  is  to  baptize  those  who  believe.  No  in- 
timation is  given  that  any  others  are  to  be  baptized,  and  from 
the  nature  of  a  positive  institution,  whatever  is  not  commanded 
is  forbidden. 

2.  There  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  any  but 
professed  believers  receiving  baptism, 

3.  The  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  relied  upon  to 
support  the  opposing  theory  disprove  it.  From  Paul's  asser- 
tion (i  Cor.  7  :  14),  for  example:  "Else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy,"  it  is  argued  that  the  holi- 
ness of  children  entitles  them  to  baptism.  But  the  holiness 
here  predicated  of  children  is  equally  predicated  of  unbe- 
lieving husbands  and  wives.  If  on  the  ground  of  this  holi- 
ness of  relation  children  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  irre- 
spective of  personal  faith,  so  are  unbelieving  husbands  and 
wives  who  have  believing  partners.  Unbelievers,  whether 
infants  or  adults,  stand  on  precisely  the  same  footing.  Had 
infant  baptism  been  practised  in  Corinth,  Paul's  argument 
would  have  no  force. 

4.  If  infant  baptism  comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision, 
as  evangelical  Pedobaptists  claim,  the  prolonged  and  bitter 
controversies  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  on  the  perpetual  obli- 
gation of  circumcision  cannot  be  explained.  A  single  sen- 
tence— "  Circumcision  is  not  binding  on  Christians  because 


32  THE  CONSTITUTION 

baptism  has  taken  its  place  " — would  have  settled  the  dispute 
at  once  and  forever. 

5.  A  statement  of  the  grounds  of  infant  baptism  consist- 
ent with  evangelical  belief  cannot  be  framed. 

6.  Evangelical  Pedobaptists,  when  they  are  contending 
for  spiritual  Christianity,  avow  principles  which  directly  deny 
the  scripturalness  of  infant  baptism.  A  few  examples  out 
of  many  that  might  easily  be  selected  will  illustrate  this. 

"  The  Way  of  Life,"  by  Charles  Hodge,  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J.,  American  Sunday- 
school  Union,  is  one  of  the  best  books  published  by  that  ex- 
cellent Society.  It  is  full  of  evangelical  truth,  admirably 
expressed.  The  following  quotations  are  from  the  chapter 
on  "  Profession  of  Religion  "  : 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  sacraments  are  efficacious,  not  to  every  re- 
cipient, but  to  the  believer  ;  to  those  who  already  have  the  grace  which 
these  sacraments  represent  (p.  261). 

That  the  sacraments  are  not  designed  to  convey  grace  to  those  who 
have  it  not  is  plain,  because  the  Scriptures  require  those  who  are  ad- 
mitted to  these  ordinances  to  make  a  profession  of  their  faith  and  re- 
pentance (p.  265). 

The  Scriptures  also  teach  that  these  ordinances  are  not  appointed  to 
convey,  in  the  first  instance,  pardon  and  sanctification,  but  to  be  signs 
and  seals  of  these  blessings  to  the  penitent  believer  ;  and  that  to  him, 
and  to  him  only,  are  they  efficacious  means  of  grace  (p.  267). 

Thus  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  concerning  God,  concerning  sin, 
atonement,  and  regeneration,  is  essential  to  a  proper  participation  of  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  (p.  279). 

In  the  "  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review,"  October, 
i860,  is  an  article  by  Principal  Cunningham,  Principal  and 
Professor  of  Church  History,  New  College,  Edinburgh,  on 
"  Zwingli  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments."  The  article, 
with  others  from  the  same  author,  has  been  republished  in  a 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  33 

volume  entitled  "  The  Reformers  and  Theology  of  the  Re- 
formation." Principal  Cunningham  argues  that  the  Reformers 
in  preparing  their  Confessions  of  Faith,  "  proceeded  on  the 
assumption  that  those  partaking  in  the  ordinances  were  duly 
qualified  and  rightly  prepared  ;  and  more  particularly  that  the 
persons  baptized,  in  whom  the  true  and  full  operation  of 
baptism  was  exhibited,  were  adults — adult  believers."  In 
support  of  this  position  he  quotes  Martin  Vitringa's  "  com- 
plete and  comprehensive  summary  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Reformed  churches  upon  this  point  "  :  "That  the  sacraments 
have  been  instituted  only  for  those  who  have  already  received 
the  grace  of  God— the  called,  the  regenerate,  the  believing, 
the  converted,  those  who  are  in  covenant  with  God  "  (p.  264). 
Vitringa  has  produced  his  evidence  at  length.  His  quota- 
tions fill  about  twenty  pages,  and  are  certainly  amply  suffi- 
cient to  establish  his  position.  They  prove  that  the  quota- 
tion we  have  produced  contains  a  correct  summary  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  in  regard  to  the  proper 
subjects  of  the  sacraments.  Vitringa  gives  extracts  from 
eight  or  ten  of  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformation  period, 
and  from  above  fifty  of  the  most  eminent  divines  of  that  and 
the  succeeding  century  (pp.  265,  266).  Two  or  three  of  his 
authorities  we  quote  : 

Samuel  Rutherford:  "  Baptism  is  not  that  whereby  we  are  entered  into 
Christ's  mystical  and  invisible  body  as  such,  for  it  is  presupposed  we  be 
members  of  Christ's  body,  and  our  sins  pardoned  already,  before  bap- 
tism comes  to  be  a  seal  of  sins  pardoned  "  ^  (p.  279). 

Thomas  Boston  :  "  The  sacraments  are  not  converting  but  confirming 


1  "  Rutherford  and  Gillespie  are,  literally  and  without  exception,  just  the  two  very 
highest  authorities  that  could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  a  question  of  this  kind,  at 
once  from  their  learning  and  ability  as  theologians,  and  from  the  place  they  held 
and  the  influence  they  exerted  in  the  actual  preparation  of  the  documents  under 
consideration." 


34  THE  CONSTITUTION 

ordinances  ;  they  are  appointed  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  God's  chil- 
dren, not  of  others  ;  they  are  given  to  behevers  as  behevers,  so  that  none 
others  are  capable  of  the  same  before  the  Lord  "  (p.  282). 

Dr.  John  Erskine,  ' '  probably  the  greatest  divine  in  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  "  :  "  Baptism,  then,  is  a  seal  of 
spiritual  blessings  ;  and  spiritual  blessings  it  cannot  seal  to  the  uncon- 
verted "  (p.  283). 

7.  The  practice  of  infant  baptism,  unchecked  by  other  in- 
fluences and  continued  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time,  will 
destroy  the  New  Testament  idea  of  the  ordinances,  of  the 
church,  and  of  Christianity.  Let  it  prevail  universally  in  any 
country  for  generations,  and  believer's  baptism  necessarily  is 
unknown.  The  communion  is  made  to  supply  in  part  the 
place  of  baptism,  and  instead  of  an  end  becomes  a  means. 
The  distinction  between  the  church  and  the  world  is  obliter- 
ated, for  all  the  subjects  of  the  State  are  members  of  the 
church.  Spiritual  regeneration  is  denied,  and  all  the  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  Christianity  disappear.  This  is  the 
history  of  all  countries  where  infant  baptism  has  universally 
prevailed  for  a  number  of  generations. 

Ought  baptism,  which  has  once  been  administered  on  a 
credible  confession  of  faith,  to  be  repeated  if  the  recipient 
afterward  supposes  he  was  not  regenerated  at  that  time  .-• 
No.  I.  By  so  doing  baptism  is  removed  from  its  true  position 
as  an  ordinance  of  the  church,  and  becomes  an  individual 
matter,  something  which  the  church  cannot  enforce,  and  the 
neglect  of  which  she  cannot  punish. 

2.  In  the  repetition  there  is  only  what  there  was  in  the 
first  instance — a  credible  confession. 

3.  Consistency  would  require  the  repetition  of  baptism 
numberless  times  if  the  recipient  demanded  it  ;  baptism 
would  then  be  what  it  was  made  by  Mr.  Beecher,  a  rite  to  be 


The  new  testament  church  35 

administered  as  often  as  the  recipient  fancied  it  would  be  for 
his  spiritual  benefit. 

By  whom  is  baptism  administered  ?  The  ordinance  is  in 
the  custody  and  under  the  control  of  the  church,  and  may  be 
administered  by  any  one  appointed  by  a  church.  It  is  not 
an  individual  act  ;  it  is  not  a  ministerial  act  ;  it  is  a  church 
act. 

II.    THE    COMMUNION. 

This  rite  was 

1.  Instituted  by  Christ  (Matt.  26  :  26-30;  Mark  14:22- 
24  ;  Luke  22  :  17-20). 

2.  It  is  of  perpetual  obligation  (i  Cor.  10  :  15-17). 

3.  It  consists  of  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  by  a 
church  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  Christ. 

4.  It  commemorates  the  death  of  our  Lord. 

5.  It  symbolizes  the  sustentation  of  spiritual  life.  It  sets 
forth  the  one  body  and  the  union  of  the  church  with  its 
head.     It  is  the  culmination  of  Christian  worship. 

And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  a  loaf,  and  blessed, 
and  broke,  and  gave  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body.  And  he  took  a  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave 
to  them,  saying.  Drink  of  it,  all  of  you.  For  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many,  unto  remission 
of  sins  (Matt.  26  :  26-28). 

And  taking  a  loaf,  he  gave  thanks,  and  broke  it,  and  gave 
to  them,  saying.  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you  ;  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  And  the  cup  in  like  manner  after 
supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood, 
which  is  shed  for  you  (Luke  22  :  19,  20). 

For  I  received  from  the  Lord,  what  I  also  delivered  to  you, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed, 
took  a  loaf ;  and  having  given  thanks,  he  broke  it,  and  said, 
This  is  my  body,  which  is  for  you ;  this  do  in  remembrance 


36  THE  CONSTITUTION 

of  me.  In  like  manner  also  the  cup,  after  they  had  supped, 
saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood  ;  this  do, 
as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's 
death  till  he  come  (i  Cor.  1 1  :  23-26). 

The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  loaf  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a 
communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  Because  we,  the  many, 
are  one  loaf,  one  body ;  for  we  all  share  in  the  one  loaf  (i 
Cor.  10  :  16,  17). 

I.  It  declares  Christ's  death.  The  fundamental  truth  of 
salvation  is  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  (i  Cor.  15  :  3).  His 
death  is  the  ground  of  our  forgiveness  (Eph.  1:7);  of  our 
redemption  from  the  bondage  of  law  (Rom.  7:4);  and  of 
sin  (Heb.  9  :  26-28) ;  of  our  reconciliation  to  God  (Col. 
I  :  21-23)  I  ^nd  of  our  life  in  him  (2  Cor.  5:1$;  Col.  3  :  3). 
Out  of  his  death  arise  all  our  spiritual  relations,  present  and 
future.  It  is  not  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus  that  is  de- 
clared by  this  ordinance,  but  his  death.  The  phrase  "broken 
for  you,"  in  the  commonly  received  version  (i  Cor.  11  :  24), 
is  regarded  by  the  best  critical  editors  as  an  interpolation, 
and  if  it  be  genuine,  cannot  refer  to  the  physical  body  of 
Christ,  for  it  was  expressly  predicted  that  this  should  not  be 
broken  (John  19  :  36).  The  theory  that  makes  the  com- 
munion a  recalling  of  the  dying  act  of  Christ,  which  has  as 
its  highest  idea  of  the  emotions  suitable  to  the  occasion  the 
reproduction  of  the  sorrows  of  those  who  were  enveloped  in 
the  shrouding  darkness  of  Calvary,  as  well  as  the  theory  that 
makes  the  communion  a  sacramental  repetition  of  that  act — 
an  ever  recurring  crucifixion — has  no  support  in  Scripture, 
and  misses  the  true  import  of  the  ordinance.  It  is  the  death 
of  Christ  that  we  proclaim  until  he  comes,  that  death  in 
which  he  made  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  that  death  which 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  ^7 

was  the  necessary  precedent  of  the  life  he  now  lives,  the  life 
which  he  imparts  to  his  people. 

2.  This   memorial  is  a  covenant.     This  cup  is  the  new 
covenant  in  my  blood  (Luke  22  :  20).     It  is  essential  to  the 
proper  observance  of  the  ordinance  that  we  eat  the  bread  and 
drink  the  wine,  and   thus   become  partakers  of   the  Lord's 
table  (i  Cor.  1 1  :  26).     In  all  Oriental  countries,  and  through- 
out the  Bible,  two  ideas  are  associated  with  eating  and  drink- 
ing together ;  one,  the  obligation  of  protection  and  defense 
on  the  part  of   the  entertainer,  an  obligation  of   the  most 
binding  and  inviolable  character ;  the  other,  the  idea  of  the 
highest  common  enjoyment,  so  that  the  consummated  bless- 
edness of  heaven  is  continually  set  forth  under  the  figure  of 
a  feast.     This  memorial  covenant  is  of  a  still  more  sacred 
character  than  that  which  arises  from  a  common  participation 
in  a  meal ;  it  asserts  a  far  higher  relation.     It  is  not  only  a 
covenant  of  bread,  but  of  blood.     Such  a  covenant  is  the 
closest  and  most  indissoluble  possible.     It  carries  with  it  on 
both  sides  a  complete  and  loving  surrender,  and  a  consecra- 
tion of  all  that  each  can  use  in  the  service  of  the  other.     For 
their  sakes,  says  Christ,  I  consecrate  myself  (John  17  :  19). 
Of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us  wisdom 
from  God,  and  righteousness  and  sanctification  and  redemp- 
tion (I  Cor.  I  :  30).      Hence,  as  both  he  that  sanctifies  and 
they  that  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one  (Heb.  2  :  11)  it  neces- 
sarily follows  that  this  memorial  is — 

3.  A  communion.  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  loaf 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ?  (i  Cor.  10  :  16).  The  communion  thus  set  forth  is 
indispensable  to  spiritual  life ;  unless  we  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood  we  have  no  life  in  us  (John 


38  THE  CONSTITUTION 

6  :  53).  The  blood  is  the  life  (Lev.  17  :  11),  and  drinking 
his  blood  we  become  partakers  of  a  common  life  ;  I  no  longer 
live,  but  Christ  lives  in  me,  and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in 
the  flesh,  I  live  in  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved 
me  and  gave  himself  for  me  (Gal.  2  :  20).  The  same  com- 
munion, union,  and  unity  are  declared  by  Christ  in  John  17  : 
23,  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfected 
in  one  ;  and  again  in  John  6  :  56,  he  that  eats  my  flesh, 
and  drinks  my  blood,  dwells  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  We  are 
partakers  of  Christ  (Heb.  3  :  14);  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Heb.  6:4);  partakers  of  his  holiness  (Heb.  12  :  10); 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature  (2  Peter  i  :  4).  This  memorial 
sets  forth  our  most  intimate  communion  and  union  with 
Christ  ;  that  our  life  is  hid  in  him,  dependent  on  him,  con- 
tinually nourished  by  him.  Union  with  Christ  necessitates 
the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ.  This  is  Paul's  argument  : 
we,  the  many,  are  one  loaf,  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers 
of  the  one  loaf  (i  Cor.  10  :  17). 

The  three  truths  then  proclaimed  in  this  ordinance  are  : 
forgiveness,  covenant,  communion,  all  springing  from  the 
death  of  Christ.  The  ultimate  and  highest  truth  furilishes 
its  appropriate  name  (i  Cor.  10  :  16). 

The  communion  is  the  highest  act  of  worship  by  the 
church.  By  it  are  declared  all  the  distinctive  truths  of 
Christianity  :  that  Christ  became  man ;  that  he  died  for  us  ; 
that  he  now  lives  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  that  he  is  com- 
ing again  ;  that  the  redeemed  and  forgiven  constitute  the 
body  of  Christ,  one  with  him  and  with  the  Father,  living  in 
him,  on  him,  and  for  him.  By  it  are  expressed  all  the  dis- 
tinctive Christian  emotions :  penitence,  faith,  peace,  love, 
gratitude,  joy.  Each  participation  in  it  is  a  wordless  confes- 
sion of  faith's  basal  principles. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  39 

SACRAMENTAL    THEORIES    OF    THE    COMMUNION. 

There  are  six  principal  theories,  other  than  the  Baptist,  on 
the  communion. 

1.  The  Zwinglian.  "  The  communion  is  the  commemora- 
tion by  appropriate  emblems  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

"There  is  no  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in 
the  ordinance ;  the  benefit  is  produced  by  the  truth  pre- 
sented to  the  mind  in  the  emblems,  exciting  religious  emo- 
tions in  the  truly  worthy  communicant,  and  strengthening 
virtuous  resolutions." 

"The  sacraments  are  signs  or  symbols,  emblematically  or 
figuratively  representing  or  signifying  scriptural  truths  or 
spiritual  blessings  ;  the  reception  of  these  is  a  commemora- 
tion of  what  Christ  has  done  for  sinners,  and  a  profession 
which  men  make  before  the  church  and  one  another  of  the 
views  which  they  entertain  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Scrip- 
ture, as  well  as  a  public  pledge  to  follow  out  consistently  the 
views  thus  professed." 

2.  The  Calvinistic.  "  A  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance 
instituted  by  Christ,  wherein  by  sensible  signs  Christ  and 
the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant  are  represented,  sealed,  and 
applied  to  believers."  ' 

"  Sacraments  are  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
not  only  signifying  or  representing  Christ  and  the  benefits 
of  the  new  covenant,  but  sealing  and  confirming  them,  and, 
in  some  sense,  applying  them  to  the  believer."  " 

'*  Worthy  receivers  outwardly  partaking  of  the  visible  ele- 
ments of  the  sacrament,  do  then  also,  inwardly  by  faith, 
really  and  indeed,  yet  not  carnally  and  corporally,  but  spirit- 


*  Shorter  Catechism.        *  "  Reformers  and  Theology  of  the  Reformation." 


40  THE   CONSTITUTION 

ually,  receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified,  and  all  benefits 
of  his  death  ;  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  not  then 
corporally  or  carnally  in,  with,  or  under  the  wine  and  bread  ; 
yet  as  really,  but  spiritually,  as  the  elements  themselves  are 
to  their  outward  senses."  ' 

'•  It  is  declared  to  be  an  efficacious  means  of  grace ;  but 
the  efficacy,  as  such,  is  referred  neither  to  any  virtue  in  it, 
nor  in  him  who  administers  it,  but  solely  to  the  attendant 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the 
word.  It  has  indeed  the  moral  objective  power  of  signifi- 
cant emblems  and  seals  of  divine  appointment,  just  as  the 
word  has  its  inherent  moral  power,  but  its  power  to  convey 
grace  depends  entirely,  as  in  the  case  of  the  word,  on  the  co- 
operation of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

3.  The  German  Reformed.  "The  sacrament  is  a  real  com- 
munion of  the  believer  with  the  whole  person  of  Christ,  who 
is  truly  present  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  sacrament  com- 
municates grace,  and  the  invisible  grace  communicated  is  the 
substantial  life  of  the  Saviour  himself,  particularly  in  his 
human  nature." 

"  Christ  is  not  with  or  under  the  consecrated  elements,  but 
in  the  entire  sacramental  transaction,  including  the  formal 
institution,  the  administration  by  the  minister,  and  the  actual 
receiving  in  faith  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  by  the 
communicant ;  Christ  does  not  communicate  himself  to  the 
unbelieving  and  unconverted,  but  to  believers  only,  who  are 
partakers  of  his  true  body  and  blood,  not  by  the  mouth,  but 
by  faith."  ^ 

4.  The  Lutheran.  "  The  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
the  sacramental  objects.  The  sacramental  objects  are  truly 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  ^    Their  true  presence  is  under 

*  Westminster  Confession.     *  "  Bib,  Sac,"  Jan.,  1863.     '  Heidelberg  Catechism. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  41 

the  form  of  bread  and  wine.  Under  this  form  or  species 
they  are  communicated.  Thus  communicated  they  are  re- 
ceived by  all  communicants."  ^  *'  True,"  as  opposed  to  his 
mystical  body  ;  his  true  body,  his  natural  body,  his  glorified 
body  are  one  and  the  same  in  identity.  "  Truly  present," 
as  opposed  to  the  Calvinistic  idea  that  they  are  present  in 
efficacy  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  believing  elect. 

5.  The  High  Church  Episcopalian.  "  The  bread  and  wine 
become  by  consecration,  really  and  sacramentally — though 
in  an  inconceivable  manner  which  cannot  be  explained  by 
earthly  similitudes  or  illustrations — the  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord." 

6.  The  Roman.  The  substance  of  the  bread  is  changed 
into  the  body  of  Christ,  that  of  the  wine  into  the  blood  of 
Christ,  the  accidents  remaining  the  same  ;  under  each  species 
(form,  kind,)  the  entire  Christ  is  present  ;  and  is  received  by 
all  who  partake  of  the  sacrament ;  by  concomitance  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  no  less  under  the  species  of  bread  than  it  is 
under  the  species  of  wine,  and  so  of  the  other. 

To  whom  should  the  communion  be  administered  ? 

To  a  church  of  baptized  believers.  From  the  nature  of 
the  ordinance  it  can  be  observed  properly  only  by  a  church. 
This  commemoration  of  Christ  is  not  an  individual  duty 
to  be  discharged  when  and  how  any  one  may  deem  proper. 
Simply  individual  duties  are  not  under  the  control  or 
supervision  of  the  church  ;  no  church  may  order  the  time 
or  occasion  or  circumstances  of  individual  prayer,  or 
call  any  one  to  account  for  not  praying.  The  commun- 
ion is  committed  to  the  church  and  enjoined  on  the 
church.     A  member  cannot  be  allowed  to  celebrate  it  when 

1  Krauth's  "  Conservative  Reformation." 


42  THE  CONSTITUTION 

and  how  he  will.  This  most  solemn  act  of  the  body  of 
Christ  is  the  divinely  appointed  way  of  setting  forth  the 
unity  of  Christ,  the  unity  of  the  body,  and  the  unity  of  the 
body  and  of  the  Head.  Hence,  the  church  cannot  throw 
open  the  doors  of  the  communion,  and  put  the  responsibility 
of  partaking  upon  any  who  may  choose  to  draw  nigh.  The 
church  is  the  custodian  and  guardian.  It  must  have  the  op- 
portunity of  forming  a  judgment  as  to  the  possession  of  the 
qualifications  required  by  the  New  Testament — union  to 
Christ,  and  union  with  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  it  may 
rightly  invite  only  those  whose  fitness  has  been  passed  upon 
by  a  church  whose  principles  of  admission  and  discipline  are 
those  of  the  New  Testament.  Privilege  and  control  must 
go  together.  In  fealty  to  him  who  has  erected  this  memorial 
of  himself,  the  church  must  see  that  the  vital  conditions 
which  inhere  in  the  ordinance  are  preserved  just  as  far  as 
human  judgment  will  allow. 

III.  PARTICIPANTS  OF  THE  COMMUNION. THE  ARGUMENTS  FOR 

RESTRICTED  COMMUNION, 

The  communion  should  be  administered  to  the  members 
in  good  standing  of  a  church  of  baptized  believers  ;  or  more 
concisely,  to  a  church  of  baptized  believers  ;  this  is  shown  : 

1,  From  the  nature  of  the  two  ordinances.  Baptism,  by 
Christ's  command,  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  ;  it  is  the  public  avowal  of  the  change  in  the  sin- 
ner's relation  to  Christ ;  the  first  act,  normally,  after  belief. 
Coming  after  the  communion,  it  has  no  meaning.  It  would 
be  an  introduction  after  acts  of  intimate  association  and 
friendship. 

2.  From  the  examples  on  record  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  the  original   institution  only  the  Twelve  were  present. 


the;  new  testament  church  43 

Certainly,  then,   the   invitation  was   not  to  all  who  love  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

In  Acts  2  :  42,  the  necessary  implication  is  that  all  were 
baptized  ;  in  Acts  20  :  7,  the  necessary  implication  is  that  all 
the  communicants  were  members  of  the  church ;  in  i  Cor. 
II  :  28,  the  same  is  true.  These  are  all  the  instances  of 
communion  in  the  New  Testament. 

3.  The  consequences  of  any  other  course.  Baptism  will 
be  taken  from  the  church,  and  the  result  will  be,  that  in  a 
Baptist  church  baptism  will  be  the  only  duty  that  the  church 
cannot  enforce. 

4.  There  is  no  consistent  and  tenable  ground  which 
the  advocates  of  open  communion  will  adopt,  and  to  which 
they  will  adhere.  They  ask  us  to  abandon  a  platform  which 
can  be  comprehended  and  which  we  can  carry  out  consist- 
ently, but  they  offer  us  nothing  in  its  place. 

5.  There  is  a  general  agreement  throughout  Christendom 
that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  com- 
munion. The  advocates  of  unrestricted  communion  demand 
that  we  assume  a  position  which  never  has  been  taken  but 
by  a  few  insignificant  sects,  which  no  Pedobaptist  church  is 
now  willing  to  take — a  position  opposed  to  all  the  standards 
in  all  ages. 

6.  The  results  of  unrestricted  communion.  It  renders 
discipline  impossible  ;  it  has  a  very  unfavorable  influence  on 
brotherly  love. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  That  it  is  the  Lord's  table.  That  it  is  the  Lord's  tabic 
requires  us  to  invite  according  to  the  Lord's  order.  The 
very  fact  of  giving  an  invitation  presupposes  that  only  certain 
classes  are  allowed  and  expected  to  come.  If  the  table  were 
open  to  all  an  invitation  would  be  superfluous.     What  belongs 


44  THE  CONSTITUTION 

equally  to  all  is  not  the  subject  of  any  man's  invitation.  The 
invited  in  such  a  case  would  resent  an  invitation  as  an  im- 
pertinence. The  invitation  in  every  case  implies  the  right 
to  exclude. 

2.  That  there  is  no  specific  prohibition  of  the  communion 
to  the  unbaptized.  There  is  no  specific  prohibition  of  baptism 
to  the  unbeliever  ;  and  if  the  communion  must  be  open  to 
the  unbaptized  because  there  is  no  prohibition,  then  baptism 
is  open  to  the  unbeliever  for  the  same  reason.  There  is  no 
express  prohibition  of  baptism  to  infants,  but  we  do  not 
thence  conclude  that  we  may  not  deny  baptism  to  infants. 

3.  That  consistency  requires  us  to  abstain  from  any  par- 
ticipation in  any  Christian  service  with  those  whom  we  do 
not  invite  to  the  communion. 

This  objection  proceeds  on  the  false  assumption  that  the 
positive  exists  before  the  moral  and  in  order  to  it.  On  the 
contrary  the  moral  exists  before  the  positive  and  in  order  to 
it ;  e.  g.,  repentance  and  faith  exist  before  baptism  and  in 
order  to  it.  Our  principle  and  practice  are  consistent ;  we 
recognize  the  moral  in  things  thit  are  moral ;  we  recognize 
the  positive  in  things  that  are  positive.  When  that  which  is 
moral  exists  without  the  positive,  we  give  it  recognition  in 
the  things  that  are  moral. 

How  often  should  the  communion  be  administered  .<*  As 
often  as  may  be  considered  in  the  judgment  of  the  church 
expedient.  There  are  some  intimations  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  the  breaking  of  bread  was  originally  a  part  of  every 
season  of  public  worship,  but  this  is  by  no  means  certain. 

The  Scripture  name  for  this  ordinance  is  "  the  Communion." 
This  is  often  strenuously  denied,  and  the  appellation  "  Lord's 
Supper,"  as  strongly  claimed.  There  is  no  objection  to  the 
uame  "  Lord's  Supper,"  but  when  it  is  asserted  that   this  is 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  45 

the  only  scriptural  designation,  and   that   the   name   "  Com- 
munion "  is  forbidden,  we  demur. 

1.  The  ordinance  is  not  called  "the  Lord's  Supper"  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  i  Cor.  11  :  20,  where  the  phrase  occurs, 
the  apostle  is  not  giving  a  proper  name  ;  if  he  were,  the  order 
of  the  Greek  words  would  be  different. 

2.  The  ordinance  is  not  called  "  the  Lord's  Supper  "  in  any 
Christian  writer  extant  until  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  then  in  commenting  on  i  Cor.  i  r  :  20.^ 

3.  Aeinvov  cannot  mean  a  morsel  of  bread  and  a  sup  of 
wine. 

4.  The  exclusion  of  the  name  "  Communion  "  would  require 
a  change  in  all  our  religious  vocabulary.  The  word  has  be- 
come interwoven  into  our  speech  in  such  a  way  that  even 
those  who  professedly  reject  it  are  compelled  to  use  it. 

5.  The  ordinance  is  expressly  called  a  communion  in  i  Cor. 
10  :  16. 


'  The  third  Council  of  Carthage  (a.  d.  418)  speaks  of  one  day  in  the  year  in 
which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  ;  so  in  the  Trullan  Council — twent}  -ninth 
canon  (A.  D.  683). — '♦  Waterland on  the  Eucharist"  p.  21. 


CHURCH  POLITY 


The  Greek  word    noXtrsia,  from  which  the  English  word , 
"polity"  is  derived,  signifies  first,  the  relation  of  a  citizen  to 
a  State  ;  second,  the  business  of  a  statesman  ;  hence,  govern- 
ment administration.     It  is  in  this  latter  sense  that  we  use 
the  word  in  the  discussion  of  Church  Polity. 

The  members  and  ordinances  of  the  church  have  thus  far 
been  considered.  These  are  determined  from  the  beginning 
by  positive  enactment,  by  express  and  definite  statute,  and 
are  essential  to  the  existence  and  character  of  the  church. 
The  methods  of  administration  and  work,  which  we  are  now 
to  discuss,  are  not  determined  by  minute  and  positive  state- 
ments, but  spring  from  the  nature  of  the  church's  constitu- 
tion,  and  hence  will  be  developed  according  to  internal 
spiritual  relations.  The  polity  of  the  church  must  be  the 
expression  of  its  own  life,  not  a  shape  imposed  from  without. 
The  organization  of  the  church  being  thus  innate  and  organic, 
the  development  and  perfection  of  the  outward  form  will 
keep  pace  with  the  development  of  the  inward  life.  The 
true  methods  of  the  church  come,  not  revealed  seriatim,  as 
the  Jews  received  the  law  from  Sinai  or  the  rules  of  the 
temple  worship,  but  as  a  living  organism  assumes  its  form  by 
the  law  of  its  own  growth. 

It  necessarily  follows  that  the  organization  and  laws  of  the 
church  will  be  gradually  manifested.      If  the  methods  of  the 
church  are  to  be  true  and  permanent,  they  must  come  from 
the  assimilation  of  the  truth. 
46 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  47 

In  this  the  divine  and  the  human  must  work  together,  so 
that  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  the  church  will  be  led 
to  its  fullness  by  growth,  by  experience,  by  conflicts,  by  dis- 
sensions. The  infant  has  in  itself  all  of  humanity  ;  there  is 
nothing  in  the  man  that  there  was  not  in  the  child,  but  the 
child  and  the  man  are  years  apart.  To  know  what  the  church 
is  in  its  polity,  we  must  study  the  training  of  the  church  in 
the  Acts  and  Epistles.  Its  development,  complete  and 
mature,  awaits  the  consummation  of  the  age. 

In  the  early  growth  of  the  church  three  stages  may  be 
noticed  ;  the  first,  in  which  the  divine  element  preponderates ; 
the  second,  in  which  the  divine  and  human  walk  together, 
but  manifestly  distinct ;  the  third,  in  which  they  are  so  united 
that  the  different  action  cannot  be  distinguished,  the  union  of 
the  divine  and  human,  which  is  the  ideal  of  Christianity. 

It  follows  :  I.  That  if  the  polity  of  the  church  is  the  true 
product  and  manifestation  of  its  life  and  principle,  there  must 
be  a  New  Testament  polity. 

2.  That  this  polity  is  binding  at  all  times  and  in  all  cir- 
cumstances. 

3.  That  it  will  not  be  found  detailed  in  rigid,  minute,  and 
unvarying  directions  in  the  New  Testament ;  if  it  is  a  life 
and  growth,  it  must  necessarily  have  a  form  flexible  and 
variant,  the  variations  never  departing  from  the  essentials  of 
Christianity,  but  caused  and  determined  by  them.  There  are 
two  opposite  errors  on  this  subject  against  which  we  must 
guard.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  no  church  polity  obligatory 
on  Christians  ;  the  second,  that  everything  in  church  life  is 
so  ordained  in  the  New  Testament  that  in  every  church, 
everywhere,  and  in  all  time,  minute  particulars  must  be 
identical. 

The  church,  being  thus  the  organic  realization  of  the  divine 


48  CHURCH    POLITY 

life,  "  the  organic  form  being  innate,  shaping  and  developing 
itself  from  within,  the  fullness  of  its  development  being  one 
and  the  same  with  the  perfection  of  its  outward  form,"  the 
importance  of  a  strict  adherence  to  a  scriptural  organization 
and  practice  is  evident.  The  intimate  connection  between 
these  is  not  only  asserted  by  philosophy  but  attested  by  his- 
tory. A  given  theology  and  a  given  polity  are  rarely  dis- 
sociated. The  external  constitution  of  a  church  is  the  fruit 
and  exponent  of  its  inner  principle  of  belief,  while  "  the  out- 
ward form  and  constitution  of  a  church,  its  worship  and  dis- 
cipline, its  offices,  its  ritual,  react  with  great  force  on  its 
inner  life  and  on  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches."  A  scheme 
of  doctrine  leads  to  a  cognate  theory  of  the  church.  The 
relation  is  uniform.  All  depreciation  of  attention  to  the 
methods  of  church  organization  is  as  irrational  as  it  is  un- 
scriptural. 

In  this  respect  the  church  is  like  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  not  a  book  of  rules,  a  code  of  laws,  but  a  book  of 
principles.^ 

What  are  the  principles  which  must  be  conserved  and 
developed  in  all  church  polity  ?  What  are  the  ideas  which 
lie  at  the  very  source  and  center  of  the  church  ? 

I.  The  vital  relation  of  Christ  to  each  member  and  of 
each  member  to  Christ.  Each  member  sustains  as  close  a 
relation  to  Christ  as  any  other  member ;  there  is  an  essential 
and  vital  equality  of  the  members,  so  that  there  can  be  no 
sacerdotal  class,  no  class  with  special  privileges,  or  permitted 

*  The  precepts  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  all  of  a  kind  to  enlighten  the  con- 
science and  not  merely  to  control  the  will.  They  are  useless  as  long  as  the 
principles  of  which  they  are  the  expression  do  not  shine  in  their  own  light.  They 
are  positively  mischievous  to  those  who  try  to  obey  them  as  rules,  instead  of  using 
them  freely  as  aids  to  the  apprehension  of  great  ethical  and  spiritual  laws. 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT   CHURCH  49 

any  special  access  to  Christ,  or  endowed  with  any  special 
function.  The  members  of  the  church  are  all  kings  and 
priests. 

2.  The  living  and  continuous  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
church.  The  life  of  the  church  is  not  something  deposited, 
a  store  of  grace,  to  be  distributed  by  the  ofificers  or  received 
in  the  sacraments  ;  it  is  a  living  Christ,  a  person  and  a  pres- 
ence to  whom  the  church  is  united  as  the  body  is  united  to 
the  head  ;  as  the  branches  are  united  to  the  vine. 

3.  The  organic  relation  of  members  to  one  another  and  to 
the  body.  They  are  one,  not  by  voluntary  combination,  but 
by  a  common  birth,  a  common  nature,  and  a  common  life. 

4.  The  completeness  of  each  church,  first,  as  related  to 
Christ ;  second,  as  related  to  one  another  ;  third,  as  related 
to  the  world. 

Or,  succinctly,  a  living  Saviour  :  a  living  church  ;  an  or- 
ganic church  ;  a  complete  church. 

With  these  fundamental  principles,  a  church  composed  of 
persons  all  of  whom  are  judged  to  be  regenerate,  to  each  one 
of  whom  Christ  has  been  divinely  revealed  by  the  Father, 
all  of  whom  are  anointed  as  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  all 
endowed  with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  with  Christ  as  the 
vital,  present,  indwelling,  governing  power,  we  proceed  to 
inquire  how  we  are  to  ascertain  the  will  of  God  concerning 
the  church  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  New  Testament. 

We  are  governed,  first,  by  express  Scripture  precept ; 
second,  by  apostolic  example,  when  that  conduct  sprang  from 
precept  or  from  the  organic  principles  of  the  church  ;  third, 
by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  churches  while  under  apostolic 
direction ;  fourth,  by  the  necessary  deductions  from  admitted 
principles. 

Scripture  commands,  Scripture  examples,  Scripture  prin- 


50  CHURCH   POLITY 

ciples,  all  are,  as  regards  their  authority,  on  precisely  the 
same  basis,  and  are  subject  to  the  same  limitations.  An 
important  question  relating  to  a  commandment — and  the 
same  would  apply  to  an  example — is,  Did  the  commandment 
or  conduct  rest  upon  a  principle  common  to  all  men  in  all 
conditions,  or  on  principles  or  facts  peculiar  to  certain  men, 
to  certain  times,  and  to  certain  circumstances  ? 

That  apostolic  example  is  binding,  circumstances  being 
equal,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  our  Lord  commissioned 
his  disciples  to  found  and  perpetuate  the  church,  and  prom- 
ised them  inspiration  in  so  doing ;  and  from  the  added  fact 
that  the  apostles  in  carrying  out  their  commission  have  left  us 
few  commands,  but  given  us  examples  of  what  they  under- 
stood as  the  law  and  spirit  of  Christ. 

In  determining  what  is  apostolic  practice,  we  are  to  see, 
first,  that  what  they  did  was  in  the  line  of  their  work ;  this 
is  that  in  which  they  were  promised  inspiration,  not  in  their 
personal  action  in  other  matters ;  second,  that  there  is  a  clear 
record  of  their  action  in  Scripture — no  tradition  or  custom  of 
post-apostolic  times  will  answer.  The  action  and  the  record 
must  both  be  inspired.  We  must  distinguish  between  that 
which  belongs  to  the  church  and  that  which  belongs  to  a 
church  ;  between  that  which  is  clearly  permanent  and  that 
which  as  clearly  belongs  to  the  formative  period. 

We  have  thus  the  most  exact  conformity  and  still  the 
widest  liberty — conformity  to  all  that  is  commanded,  to  all 
that  is  essential  to  the  life  of  the  church,  and  that  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  its  spirit  ;  liberty  of  spirit  and  action  ;  under 
no  bondage  to  mere  details  or  to  the  letter.  This  liberty  is 
Christian  liberty,  arising  from  the  nature  of — 

I .  The  New  Testament,  which  is  a  book  of  principles  and 
not  of  rules. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  5 1 

2.  Of  the  church,  whose  members  are  sons  and  not  ser- 
vants ;  governed  by  love  and  not  by  law ;  walking  after  the 
Spirit  and  not  after  the  flesh. 

3.  Of  spiritual  growth,  which  demands  the  incessant  ap- 
plication of  moral  principles  to  cases  which  daily  arise.  In 
the  application  of  principles  and  not  of  rules  lies  one  great 
principle  of  sonship  rind  means  of  moral  growth. 

CHURCH    FUNCTIONS    AND    OFFICERS. 

In  tracing  the  development  of  church  organization  and 
church  polity  in  the  inspired  record,  we  find  various  func- 
tions, various  offices,  and  various  names.  In  no  place  is 
there  any  formal  and  exhaustive  enumeration.  Some  of 
these  are  expressly  declared  to  be  temporary,  adapted  to  the 
first  years  of  the  church,  and  intended  to  disappear  as  the 
canon  of  revelation  was  completed,  and  the  perfect  will  of 
God  made  known  to  the  church.  While  these  are  evidently 
needed  for  the  infantile  state,  others  are  as  evidently  de- 
signed for  the  ordinary  work  and  worship  of  a  regularly  or- 
ganized church.  In  some  of  these  offices  or  functions  the 
supernatural  qualifications  are  the  first  to  come  into  view, 
and  are  so  prominent  as  almost  to  drive  the  natural  out  of 
sight ;  in  the  others,  the  natural  are  first  named  and  demanded. 
The  exercise  of  some  of  these  gifts  was  occasional,  not  at  the 
will  of  the  person ;  of  the  others,  constant  and  voluntary. 
For  the  perpetuation  of  some  of  these  provision  is  made ;  for 
others  no  direction  is  given. 

The  most  exhaustive  enumeration  of  gifts  and  functions 
we  find  in  i  Cor.  12  :  28  and  in  Eph.  4:11.  The  first  seems 
to  combine  diverse  classes  ;  the  second  similar.  Let  us  ex- 
amine it:  "And  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles,  and  some 
prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers, 


52  CHURCH   POLITY 

with  a  view  to  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
ministration,  for  the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ." 

We  have  seen  that  the  Christian  church  was  not  organized 
until  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  that  its  character  is  such  that 
we  must  look  for  an  organization  as  new  as  its  character. 
From  the  principles  already  established,  it  will  be  natural  to 
expect  that  there  will  be  authorities,  endowments,  instrumen- 
talities, provisions,  which  will  cease  as  the  conditions  in  which 
they  come  into  being  cease. 

THE    APOSTLES.^ 

After  it  became  evident  that  our  Lord  would  be  rejected 
by  the  Jews,  he  left  Judea  and  began  his  ministrations  in 
Galilee.  Here  he  chose  twelve  men,  to  whom  he  gave  the 
remainder  of  his  life.  He  taught  them  in  public  and  in 
private.  He  made  them  his  companions,  and  when  they  had 
acquired  the  knowledge  of  God — of  himself,  of  his  person 
aud  his  work — which  was  necessary  for  the  establishment  of 
his  church,  he  gave  up  his  life  on  Calvary.  After  his  resur- 
rection he  gave  further  instruction  to  his  disciples ;  committed 
to  them  the  work  of  imparting  to  others  that  which  they  had 
received  from  him  ;  assured  them  of  his  immanent  presence; 
ascended  to  heaven  ;  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  to  vivify  the  church 
and  to  take  up  his  abode  with  the  disciples,  and  sat  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  God. 

In  our  Lord's  Judean  ministry  he  presented  himself  to  the 


'  The  word  airorroAot,  in  the  first  instance,  is  an  adjective  signifying  dispatched, 
or  sent  forth.  Applied  to  a  person  it  mears  more  than  5yy»Ao«.  The  apostle  is 
not  only  the  messenger,  but  the  delegate  of  the  person  who  sends  him.  He  is 
entrusted  with  a  mission ;  has  powers  conferred  upon  him.  Beyond  this  the 
classical  usage  of  the  verm  gives  no  aid  toward  understanding  the  meaning  of  the 
Christian's  apostolate. — '^Lightfoo*  on  Jalatians"  f.  gj. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  53 

nation  as  their  Messiah.  John  the  Baptist  formally  an- 
nounced  and  declared  him  to  the  Sanhedrin,  the  legal  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nation  (John  i  :  19-27).  Our  Lord  asserts 
his  position  and  relation  by  significant  actions  (John  2  :  14- 
16).  He  begins  to  baptize  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples 
(John  3  :  22).  So  far  as  we  know  he  does  not  go  about  preach- 
ing and  working  miracles,  but  awaits  the  verdict  of  the  nation. 
His  first  recognition  by  the  Galileans  does  not  come  from 
works  done  in  Galilee,  but  from  those  done  in  Jerusalem, 
which  were  so  inoperative  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  (John  4:45). 

After  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  our  Lord  turns 
from  his  work  in  Judea,  and  begins  his  work  in  Galilee,  de- 
voting himself  to  his  twelve  disciples,  the  nucleus  of  the 
church.^  The  former  had  reference  to  the  Jewish  nation,  the 
latter  to  a  church  to  be  gathered  out  of  all  nations. 

L  That  the  apostolic  office  was  not  designed  to  be  trans- 
mitted is  shown — 

1.  By  the  nature  and  design  of  the  office.  What  this  is 
we  have  already  considered. 

2.  By  the  qualification  for  it. 

3.  By  the  method  of  inauguration. 

4.  By  the  course  pursued  by  the  apostles  after  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

5.  There  is  no  provision  made  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 
office  by  human  means,  and  there  are  no  directions  given  with 
regard  to  filling  the  office. 

1  In  all  that  he  does  during  this  period  there  is  apparently  no  step  looking  for- 
ward to  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  to  the  formation  of  a  church 
on  a  new  foundation.  Although  assisted  in  his  work  by  a  few  who  early  dis- 
cerned in  him  the  Messiah,  he  seems  to  have  done  nothing  that  indicated  a  pur- 
pose to  gather  out  a  few  from  the  nation  at  large.  The  whole  Judean  ministry  is 
an  appeal  to  the  people  to  receive  him  as  their  Messiah  through  the  divinely  con- 
stituted heads. — Andrew'  i  '■^Life  of  our  Lord,"  p.  ijo. 


54  CHURCH   POLITY 

6.  It  includes  in  itself  every  office  and  gift  of  the  Christian 
church. 

7.  By  the  instructions  given  them.  When  our  Lord  ad- 
dresses the  Twelve  apart  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  those 
addresses  are  of  a  strongly  marked  character.  They  belong  to 
the  church  as  a  body.  We  have  a  specimen  of  these  instruc- 
tions at  the  beginning  of  their  career,  during  its  progress,  at 
its  close.  An  examination  of  the  10th  chapter  of  Matthew  as 
a  specimen  of  the  first ;  of  John  14-17,  as  a  specimen  of  the 
second;  of  Matt.  28:  16-20,  as  a  specimen  of  the  last,  will 
show  that  these  instructions  and  promises  are  not  addressed 
to  them  personally,  nor  to  them  as  ministers,  but  to  the  whole 
church  i-n  all  ages. 

II.  The  qualifications  for  the  apostolic  office. 

1.  A  personal  call  from  Christ  to  the  work  (Luke  6:13- 
16  ;  Mark  3  :  14,  15  ;  Gal.  i  :  i). 

2.  A  personal  knowledge  of  Christ's  resurrection  (Acts  i  : 
21,  22  ;  2  :  32  ;  4  :  33  ;  10  :  39-42  ;  i  Cor.  9  :  i  ;  15  :  8  ;  2 
Peter  i  :  18). 

3.  A  special  endowment — ability  to  impart  spiritual  gifts 
(Acts  I  :  8  ;  8:1  5-19 ;   19:6;  Rom.  i  :  1 1). 

4.  A  universal  commission  to  organize  churches,  to  institute 
offices,  to  exercise  authority,  never  confined  to  a  single  church 
or  to  a  single  work. 

^  5.  Personal  gifts  and  qualities  which  made  their  work  not 
impersonal,  temporary,  or  official  (like  the  ancient  prophet, 
preacher,  etc.),  but  personal,  inalienable,  and  all-comprehen- 
sive (i  Cor.  4:16;  1 1  :  I  ;  i  Thess.  i  :  6  ;  2  Thess.  3  :  7,  9 ; 
2  Cor.  3  :  1-3).  While  prophets  are  said  to  exhort,  evangel- 
ists to  preach,  and  others  to  teach,  the  apostles  alone  are  said 
to  witness  or  testify.  Paul  preached  a  long  time  before  he 
assumed  the  duties  of  an  apostle.     The  apostles  Christ-ward 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CHURCH  55 

represented     the     church ;     church-ward     they    represented 
Christ. 

III.  The  only  outward  inauguration  of  the  apostles  into 
office  was  that  remarkable  and  significant  act  of  Christ  when 
he  breathed  on  them  and  said,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost." 

^  The  vivifying  and  vitalizing  principle  and  power  of  the  church 
is  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  Christ  thus  spoke  to  them  he  ad- 
dressed them  as  the  church  (John  20  :  22).  This  was  the 
symbolic  impartation  of  the  life  of  the  church  fulfilled  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost. 

IV.  The  course  pursued  by  them  after  the  assumption  of 
the  duties  of  their  office  illustrates  the  same  fact.  If  any 
were  trained  by  Christ  as  preachers  simply  or  chiefly,  why  is 
there  so  little  manifestation  of  their  performance  of  this  duty  ? 
Peter,  as  the  representative  of  the  apostolic  college,  lays  the 
foundation  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  but  the  apostles  as 
individuals  are  scarcely  noticed.  When  the  church  was  scat- 
tered abroad  by  the  persecution  that  arose  about  Stephen, 
the  members  went  everywhere  preaching  the  word,  except 
the  apostles.  They  remained  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  3  :  1-4). 
When  new  places  received  the  word  the  apostles  sent  dele- 
gates (Acts  8  :  14).  When  differences  of  opinion  arose,  em- 
bassies were  sent  to  the  apostles.  It  is  evident  that  the 
apostles  considered  it  their  duty  not  to  go  abroad  preaching, 

'  but  to  remain  as  a  body  in  Jerusalem,  the  center  of  unity, 
and  the  source  of  instruction  and  strength. 

V.  There  is  no  provision  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  office, 
nor  any  directions  given  as  to  the  character  of  those  who  are 
to  be  chosen  to  occupy  the  position. 

VI.  In  the  apostolic  office  was  expressly  included  every 
office  and  gift  of  the  Christian  church  :  bishop  (Acts  i  :  20) ; 
elder  (i  Peter  5  :  i  ;  2  John  i  ;  3  John  i);  deacon  (Acts  1:25; 


$6  CHURCH   POLiTV 

6:2);  prophet  (Acts  13:1).  It  is  evident  from  the  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians  that  they  had  the  gifts  of  miracles,  of 
prophecy,  of  government,  of  teaching,  of  tongues,  of  min- 
istration. 

PROPHETS. 

A  prophet,  in  Scripture  language,  is  one  who  is  authorized 
to  speak  for  another  (Exod.  7:1).  The  "pro"  is  local,  not 
temporal ;  although  the  prophet  often  predicted  future  events, 
this  is  not  essential  to  the  office.  In  the  East  the  monarch 
uttered  his  commands  through  his  vizier  or  officer  who  stood 
before  him  ;  God's  prophet  is  one  who  speaks  under  special 
divine  inspiration.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  came  with 
a  special  commission  from  God  to  declare  his  will,  to  rebuke, 
arouse,  direct,  comfort. 

It  was  predicted  that  there  should  be  prophets  under  the 
New  Dispensation  (Acts  2  :  17,  18).  John  was  a  prophet 
(Matt.  II  :  g;  14:5;  21  :  26).  Jesus  was  a  prophet  (Luke 
13  '•  33)-  Christ  declared  that  he  would  send  prophets  (Matt. 
23  :  34  ;  Luke  11  :  49).  Prophets  were  recognized  in  the 
church  (Acts  11  :  27;  19  :  6;  15  :  32).  Prophets  held  a 
very  important  position  and  discharged  a  very  important 
office  in  the  establishment  of  the  church  (Rom.  16  :  26 ; 
Eph.  2  :  19,  22  ;  3:5;  2  Peter  i  :  19). 

While  this  office  was  one  of  great  importance  and  benefit 
to  the  church,  it  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  apostle.  The  gift 
was  widely  diffused,  was  capable  of  perversion  and  abuse. 
There  were  many  pretenders  to  it  (i  John  4  :  i,  2),  by  which 
some  were  led  astray  and  others  caused  to  depreciate  the 
gift  (i  Thess.  5  :  19,  20);  and  it  was  to  disappear  when  the 
canon  of  revelation  was  complete  (i  Cor.  13  :  8-13).^ 

'  Bleek  says  vpo<f>r)T(ia  "  denotes  the  communication  of  all  manner  of  knowledge 
which  has  not  been  acquired  in  a  natural  way,  by  tradition,  or  by  perception  of  the 


THE   NKW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  57 

EVANGELISTS. 

It  would  be  natural  in  the  formative  period  of  the  church 
that  there  should  be  an  officer  for  discharging  duties  delegated 
by  the  apostles  and  under  their  direction.  The  instructions 
given  Timothy  and  Titus  are  such  as  would  be  appropriate  to 
an  officer  of  this  character.  Timothy  is  called  an  evangelist 
(2  Tim.  4:5);  he  had  received  special  spiritual  gifts  (i  Tim. 

4  :  14;;  special  authority  was  conferred  on  him  (i  Tim.  6:1; 

5  :  1-2 1);  he  was  attached  to  Paul's  person  and  under  his 
control,  not  placed  over  any  particular  church  (2  Tim.  4:9); 
so  also  Titus  i  :  5.* 

senses,  or  by  reflection,  but  by  immediate  revelation.' '  In  the  New  Testament  it 
is  often  the  declaration  of  what  is  hidden  in  men's  hearts,  and  admonition,  ex- 
hortation, and  warning  connected  therewith. 

1  It  is  a  conception  of  a  later  age  which  represents  Timothy  as  bishop  of  Ephesus 
and  Titus  as  bishop  of  Crete.  St.  Paul's  own  language  implies  that  the  position 
they  held  was  temporary.  In  both  cases  their  term  of  office  is  drawing  to  a  close 
when  the  apostle  writes.  (See  I  Tim.  1:3;  3:14;  2  Tim.  4  :  9,  21.) — ^'■Light- 
foot  on  P/iilippia7is,^'  J>.  ig). 

It  follows,  from  i  Tim.  i  :  3,  that  he  and  his  master,  after  the  release  of  the 
latter  from  his  imprisonment,  revisited  proconsular  Asia ;  that  the  apostle  continued 
his  journey  to  Macedonia,  while  the  disciple  remained  half  reluctantly,  even  weep- 
ing at  the  separation  (2  Tim.  i  :  4)  at  Ephesus,  to  check,  if  possible,  the  outgrowth 
of  heresy  and  licentiousness  which  had  sprung  up  there.  The  time  during  which 
he  was  thus  to  exercise  authority  as  the  delegate  of  an  apostle — vicar  apostolic, 
rather  than  a  bishop — was  of  uncertain  duration  (i  Tim.  3  ;  14).  The  position  in 
which  he  found  himself  might  well  make  him  anxious.  He  had  to  rule  presbyters 
most  of  whom  were  older  than  himself  (i  Tim.  4  :  12) ;  to  assign  to  each  a  stipend 
in  proportion  to  his  work  (5  :  17) ;  to  receive  and  decide  on  charges  that  might  be 
brought  against  them  (5:1,  19,  20) ;  to  regulate  the  almsgiving  and  sisterhood  of 
the  church  (5  :  3-10);  to  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  (3  :  1-13). —  Sviith' s 
•'  Bible  Dictionary"  III.,  3234, 

Of  Titus  we  learn  that  he  was  left  in  Crete,  to  complete  what  Paul  had  been 
obliged  to  leave  unfinished,  and  he  is  to  organize  churches  throughout  the  island  by 
appointing  presbyters  in  every  city  (i  :  5).  Instructions  are  given  as  to  the  suit- 
able character  of  such  presbyters  (i  :  6-9) ;  and  we  learn  further  that  we  have  here 
the  repetition  of  instructions  previously  furnished  by  word  of  mouth  (ver.  5).     Next 


58  CHURCH   POLITY 

The  nature  of  the  work,  and  its  relation  to  the  apostolic 
office,  show  that  it  must  cease  when  the  apostolic  office  ceases. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  no  provision  is  made  for 
appointment  to  the  office,  and  there  is  no  mention  anywhere 
of  the  qualifications  for  the  office. 

PASTORS    AND    TEACHERS. 

There  is  no  indication  in  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  pe- 
culiar nature  of  the  offices  thus  designated,  or  as  to  the  special 
duties  assigned  to  them.  The  most  that  can  be  conjectured 
is  that  the  titles  of  the  office  were  significant  of  the  duties. 

The  title  "  pastor  "  is  never  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  the  bishop  of  a  local  church. 

The  meaning  of  "the  angel  of  the  church,"  used  only  in 
Rev.  I  :  20;  2  :  I,  8,  12,  18;  3  :  I,  7,  14,  is  so  uncertain  that 
no  satisfactory  explanation  can  be  given  of  it.  It  is  unwise 
to  attempt  to  prove  by  the  Apocalypse  a  doctrine  or  practice 
not  clearly  established  in  other  parts  of  the  Scripture.' 

BISHOPS    OR    PRESBYTERS. 

In  the  state  of  Christianity  when  the  extraordinary  had 
given  way  to  the  permanent,  and  local  churches  were  estab- 
lished, we  find  two  classes  of  functions.     They  are  such  as 

he  is  to  control  and  bridle  (ver.  ii)  the  restless  and  mischievous  Judaizere,  and  he 
is  to  be  peremptory  in  so  doing  (ver.  13).  Injunctions  in  the  same  spirit  are  reiter- 
ated (2  :  1, 15 ;  3  :  8).  He  is  to  urge  the  duties  of  a  decorous  Christian  life  upon 
the  women  (2  :  3,  5),  some  of  whom  possibly  had  something  of  an  official  char- 
acter (2  :  3,  4).  He  is  to  be  watchful  over  his  own  conduct  (2:7);  he  is  to  im- 
press upon  the  slaves  the  peculiar  duties  of  their  position  (2  :  9,  10) ;  he  is  to  check 
all  social  and  political  influence  (3  :  i),  also  all  wild  theological  speculations  (3  : 
9),  and  to  exercise  discipline  over  the  heretical  (3  :  10). — Smith's  "Bible  Dic- 
tionary,''  III.,  p.  3267. 

•On  the   angel  of  the    church,   vide    "Bibliotheca  Sacra,"   April,   1855,  *°<i 
"Lightfoot  on  Philippians." 


l^HE   NEW   TESTAMENT  CHURCH  S9 

would  naturally  grow  out  of  the  nature  and  constitution  of  a 
church ;  such  as  would  promote  its  design  and  develop  its 
true  character  :  the  first  having  to  do  more  especially  with 
the  spiritual,  and  the  second  with  the  temporal  (Rom.  12  : 
6-8;   I  Cor.  12  .-4-30;   i  Thess.  5  :  12,  14;  i  Peter  4  :  10). 

As  these  ministries  are  a  function  of  the  church,  and  do 
not  come  by  arbitrary  enactment,  we  should  expect  the  names 
at  first  to  be  descriptive,  derived  from  the  work,  applied 
widely,  and  only  in  course  of  time  settling  down  into  official 
restricted  appellations.  Thus  didxovoq  —  deacon,  servitor, 
would  be  applied  to  all  who  served ;  to  all  Christians  (John 
12  :  26) ;  to  the  apostles  (Acts  i  :  17,  25) ;  to  Paul  (20  :  24) ; 
to  Timothy  (2  Tim.  4:5);  to  the  ministry  in  general  (Eph. 
4  :  12) ;  finally  to  the  special  class  (i  Tim.  3  :  8). 

Bishop '  and  elder  (presbyter)  are  the  names  which  are  at 
last  the  titles  of  the  presiding  officer  and  teachers  of  the 
church.  Elder  or  presbyter  is  the  Jewish  term,  bishop  or 
overseer  the  Greek.  The  use  of  the  word  presbyter,  elder, 
as  an  official  designation  to  denote  one  who  had  authority  or 
leadership,  arose  from  the  patriarchal  origin  of  government 
among  the  Hebrew-Semitic  nation.  In  the  most  natural 
way,  elder  came  to  mean  officer,  without  any  reference  to 
age.  We  have  the  same  form  in  our  word  alderman,  elder- 
man. 

In  the  Septuagint  the  word  is  common.  In  some  places  it 
signifies  inspectors,  superintendents,  taskmasters  (2  Kings 
11:15;  2  Chron.  34  :  11-17  ;   Isa.  60  :  17) ;  in  others  it  is  a 

*  'Etrt'o-KOTTo;,  bishop,  was  an  official  title  among  the  Greeks.  In  Athenian  lan- 
guage, it  was  used  specially  to  designate  commissioners  appointed  to  regulate  a 
new  colony  or  acquisition.  The  title,  however,  is  not  confined  to  Attic  usage. 
It  is  the  designation,  e.  g.,  of  the  inspectors  whose  business  it  was  to  report  to 
the  India  kings ;  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  Mithradates  to  settle  affairs 
in  Ephesus. — Lightfoot. 


6o  CHURCH  POLITY 

higher  title,  captains  or  presidents  (Neh.  1 1  :  9).  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  appointed  bishops  over  all  the  people  to  see  that 
his  orders  were  obeyed.  "  Thus  beyond  the  fundamental 
idea  of  inspection  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  word  bishop, 
its  usage  suggests  two  subsidiary  notions  also  :  i.  Responsi- 
bility to  a  superior  power ;  2.  The  introduction  of  a  new 
order  of  things." 

Presbyter  is  the  Jewish  term.  Peter  and  James,  in  their 
epistles,  say  elder,  not  bishop.^ 

In  the  New  Testament,  bishop  is  used  four  times,  elder 
seventeen  times,  to  denote  an  officer  in  a  church. 

That  these  titles  bishop  and  presbyter  are  equivalent  and 
are  used  interchangeably,  is  shown  : 

1.  From  their  employment  in  the  same  connection  to  desig- 
nate the  same  office  and  work  (Acts  20  :  17  cf.  with  20  :  28; 
Titus  I  :  5  cf.  with  1:7;!  Peter  5  :  i,  2);  and  also  by  those 
passages  in  which  bishops  and  deacons  seem  to  comprise  all 
the  officers  of  a  church.  In  i  Tim.  3  :  1-13.  e.  g.,  the  quali- 
fications of  bishops  and  deacons  are  given  without  any  refer- 
ence to  an  intermediate  class;  in  Phil.  1:1,  the  bishops 
and  deacons  are  addressed  as  if  they  included  all  the  church 
officers. 

2.  From  the  identity  of  qualifications  required  for  the 
office  (i  Tim.  3  :  2-7  compared  with  Titus  i  :  5-9).  . 

'  "  Presbyter  appears  first  in  connection  with  the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem 
(Acts  II  :  30).  From  this  time  forward  all  official  communications  with  the 
mother  church  are  carried  on  through  their  intervention.  To  the  presbyters 
Barnabas  and  Saul  bear  the  alms  contributed  by  the  Gentile  churches.  The 
presbyters  are  persistently  associated  with  the  apostles :  in  convening  the  congress, 
in  the  superscription  of  the  decree,  and  in  the  general  settlement  of  the  dispute 
between  the  Gentile  and  the  Jewish  Christians.  By  the  presbyters  Paul  is  received 
many  years  later,  on  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  to  them  he  gives  an  account 
of  his  missionary  labors  and  triumphs." 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  $1 

3.  From  the  identity  of  the  duties  required,  shown  by  the 
preceding  references. 

4.  This  proposition  is  further  proved  by  the  overwhelming 
testimony  of  learned  men  of  all  denominations  in  modern  and 
ancient  times.  It  would  be  impossible  to  quote  this  testi- 
mony. In  Dexter's  "Congregationalism"  will  be  found  a 
copious  list  of  authorities  ;  see  also  Coleman's  "  Manual  of 
Prelacy  and  Ritualism,"  and  Lightfoot  on  the  "  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians." 

That  the  office  of  the  ministry  is  of  divine  appointment  is 
evident : 

1.  From  the  direct  assertions  of  the  Scripture  (Acts  20  : 
28  ;   I  Tim.  3:1-7;  Titus  i  :  5-9). 

2.  From  the  prescribed  qualifications  for  the  office. 

3.  From  the  divine  ordinance  for  its  support  (Luke  10:7; 
I  Cor.  9:14;  2  Cor.  1 1  :  7-9  ;  Gal.  6  :  6). 

4.  From  the  directions  given  relative  to  the  conduct  of 
members  of  the  church  toward  those  set  over  them  in  the 
Lord  (Heb.  13:17;   i  Thess.  5:13,  14). 

THE    DUTIES    OF    A    BISHOP. 

His  first  duty  is  to  preach  ;  both  to  proclaim  and  to  teach. 

The  whole  work  of  instruction  in  the  truths  of  revelation, 
of  the  declaration,  explanation,  illustration,  application,  and 
enforcement  of  scriptural  truths,  is  committed  to  him.  To 
this  all  other  work  must  be  subordinate ;  he  must  not  shun 
to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God  ;  to  instruct,  warn,  re- 
buke with  all  authority.  No  range  of  Christian  tru*:h,  no 
department  of  Christian  life,  but  comes  within  the  range  of 
his  teaching. 

He  is  to  shepherd  the  flock  of  Christ  (John  21  :  15-17); 
to  watch  over,  protect,  govern,  provide  for,  defend ;  he  is  to 


63  CHURCH    POLITY 

defend  his  flock  from  all  spiritual  enemies,  from  the  attacks 
and  assaults  of  Satan,  from  the  influence  of  the  world,  from 
every  form  of  evil  which  he  can  withstand  (John  lo  :  1 1,  etc.). 
There  may  be  bad  men,  designing  men,  troublesome  men, 
strife-breeders,  preachers  of  error,  whom  he  must  steadfastly 
resist  in  the  faith.  He  is  to  provide,  control,  direct  the  work 
of  the  church,  to  develop  the  whole  church  life,  to  inspire, 
and  inspect  the  whole  worship,  work,  and  discipline.  He  is 
to  sustain  pastoral  relations  not  only  to  the  whole  church, 
but  to  the  individual  members  ;  taking  individual  and  per- 
sonal care  and  oversight ;  imparting  instruction,  admonition, 
comfort,  as  may  be  needed  in  each  case.  He  must  be  able 
to  say  in  some  degree,  "  I  know  my  sheep  and  am  known  of 
mine,  and  they  hear  my  voice  and  they  follow  me.  I  am 
come  that  they  may  have  life,  and  may  have  it  more  abun- 
dantly." 

He  is  to  be  a  teacher  in  the  widest  sense  :  rightly  dividing 
the  word  of  truth  (2  Tim.  2  :  1 5) ;  a  scribe  instructed  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  bringing  out  of  his  treasury  things  new 
and  old  (Matt.  13  :  52). 

He  is  to  be  a  leader  of  the  church  (Heb.  13  :  7,  17,  24),  an 
example  in  all  his  actions,  methods,  deportment,  spirit,  and  in- 
fluence to  the  flock  (i  Tim.  4:12). 

He  is  to  rule  the  church  (Rom.  12:8;  i  Tim.  5:17;  i 
Thess.  5  :  12;  i  Tim.  3  :  4,  5).  The  nature  of  the  rule 
of  the  bishop  must  be  remembered ;  it  is  always  character- 
ized, determined,  and  limited  by  the  relation  which  gives  its 
birth.  It  is  like  all  rightful  authority,  when  rightly  admin- 
istered by  one  duly  qualified  and  organized,  not  only  sub- 
mitted to,  but  welcomed  and  prized.  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  this  is  strictly  pastoral  authority  and  obedience.  The 
subjection  of  a  child  to  a  parent  is  one  thing ;  that  of  a  wife 


THB  NKW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  63 

to  the  husband  is  another ;  that  of  a  member  of  a  delibera- 
tive body  to  the  presiding  officer  another ;  that  of  a  mem- 
ber of  a  church  to  the  pastor  another.  No  man  is  humihated 
in  submitting  to  the  proper  officer  of  the  body  to  which  he 
belongs,  or  in  recognizing  the  relation. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  bishop  to  officiate  publicly  as  the  rep- 
resentative and  leader  of  the  church  in  public  and  formal 
acts  of  worship  by  the  church. 

THE    QUALIFICATIONS    OF    A    BISHOP. 

The  qualifications  for  the  office  grow  out  of  the  duties  of 
the  office.  He  must  be  a  converted  man  ;  he  must  possess 
those  Christian  graces  which  are  demanded  for  the  right  dis- 
charge of  the  work  of  the  ministry — patience,  long-suffering, 
gentleness,  meekness,  humility ;  he  must  also  have  the  quali- 
fications set  forth  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus ;  he 
must  be  a  man  of  estimable  private  character,  of  unquestioned 
integrity  of  conduct ;  he  must  be  apt  to  teach  ;  must  have 
ability  to  rule  ;  must  be  of  suitable  age  and  experience  ;  and 
must  have  a  good  reputation  among  the  unconverted. 

CALL    TO    THE    MINISTRY. 

If  a  man  is  called  to  the  work  of  feeding  the  flock  of 
Christ,  of  being  a  leader,  guide,  instructor  of  God's  people, 
he  will  possess  the  necessary  qualifications : 

1.  The  physical,  intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual  endow- 
ments. 

2.  The  witness  in  his  own  spirit  of  a  call  to  the  work, 
manifested  in  ways  which  will  vary  with  each  individual. 

3.  The  judgment  of  the  church,  as  to  his  possession  of 
the  requisite  spiritual  gifts,  and  the  expediency  of  their 
exercise. 

4.  The  concurring  providence  of  God,  in  opening  the  way, 


64  CHURCH   POLITY 

in  removing  all  obstacles  to  the  recognition  and  exercise  of 
the  gift. 

Hence  no  man  can  claim  the  right  to  perform  ministerial 
functions  simply  on  the  ground  of  his  own  convictions.  If 
one  is  called  by  the  Spirit  to  assume  an  office  in  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  fact  will  be  made  evident  to  others  besides  the 
one  who  supposes  he  is  so  called.  No  one  should  undertake 
the  discharge  of  this  function  unless  there  is  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  providence,  of  the  church,  and  of  himself. 
David  was  anointed  king  of  Israel  by  the  prophet  in  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  command,  but  he  did  not  enter  on  the 
duties  of  his  office  until  the  people  recognized  the  divine  ap- 
pointment, and  chose  him  as  their  sovereign.  There  is  no 
indication  of  any  one  in  New  Testament  times  exercising  the 
ministerial  .office  without  the  consent  of  the  church  (Acts 
13:2;  I  Tim.  4  :  14;  2  Tim.  i  :  6).  In  the  exercise  of 
spiritual  gifts,  the  prophets  must  preserve  self-control,  and 
must  obey  the  church  (i  Cor.  14  :  17-40). 

ORDINATION. 

The  word  •'  ordination  "  does  not  occur  in  our  ordinary 
version.  The  verb  "  ordain,"  when  used  in  the  sense 
of  to  appoint  a  person,  is  the  translation  of  six  Greek 
words:  noiiw  (Mark  3  :  14);  yivofiat  (Acts  i  :  22) ;  xadigrrini 
(Titus  1:5);  6piZ(i)  (Acts  17  :  31);  ridfifii  (I  Tim  2  :  y)  ; 
xeipoToviw  (Acts  14  :  23).  This  last  word  is  also  used  in  Acts 
10  :  41,  translated  "chosen."  Of  these  only  two,  xadiarriin 
and  -j^etpuToviw,  are  spoken  of  the  ordination  of  Christian  elders. 
In  the  apparent  sense  of  the  word,  as  now  used  to  denote  a 
public,  ceremonious  induction  in^o  office,  the  word  occurs 
but  twice,  but  in  neither  of  these  cases  (Acts  14  :  23  ;  Titus 
I  :  5)  can  the  word  bear  that  meaning. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  65 

Ordination,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  now  using  the 
word,  is  an  act  by  which  the  church  publicly  and  formally 
declares  that  one  of  its  members  has  been  regularly  called  to 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  by  which  it  gives  its  sanction  to 
the  performance  of  official  acts  by  him,  and  solemnly  in- 
vokes on  him  the  blessing  of  God  in  the  performance  of 
his  work. 

The  laying  on  of  hands,  which  now  generally  accompanies 
the  public  service,  seems  to  have  been  the  act  ordinarily 
attending  the  solemn  commending  of  a  person  to  the  bless- 
ing of  the  Lord  (Matt.  19  :  13  ;  Acts  13  :  1-3).  The  Romish 
and  Episcopal  idea  of  ordination  is  (i)  the  impressing  on  the 
soul  a  spiritual  character  or  stamp,  which  is  so  indelible  that 
he  who  is  once  made  a  priest  can  never  return  to  the  condi- 
tion of  a  layman  ;  and  (2)  the  conferring  of  grace,  not  sancti- 
fying, but  ministerial,  for  the  valid  performance  of  sacerdotal 
functions. 

WHO    ORDAINS.? 

The  church  of  which  the  candidate  is  a  member ;  but  inas' 
much  as  this  church  has  fraternal  relations  with  churches  of 
the  same  faith  and  order,  so  that  its  acts  are  respected,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  church  wishes  the  recognition  and  sanction 
of  its  minister  by  other  churches,  it  is  at  once  the  dictate  of 
justice  and  courtesy  that  neighboring  churches  be  requested 
to  examine  the  candidate,  and  advise  the  church  as  to  his  fit- 
ness to  represent  the  sisterhood  of  churches.  If  any  church 
undertakes  to  decide  without  consultation  on  the  fitness  of 
the  candidate  for  office,  manifestly  it  can  and  ought  to  decide 
for  itself  solely.  It  would  be  very  dishonest  to  send  forth 
such  a  man  as  a  minister  endorsed  and  recognized  by  the 
denomination. 


66  CHURCH   POUTY 

OTHER    THEORIES. 

The  Presbyterians  claim  a  ruling  eldership  ;  but  there  is 
no  scriptural  warrant  for  such  an  office,  as  distinct  from  a 
preaching  eldership.  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia, 
says  :  "  Of  presbyters  without  authority  to  preach,  neither  a 
word  nor  an  example  is  found,  from  the  demise  of  the  last 
apostle  to  the  Reformation  in  Switzerland  ;  they  neither  ex- 
isted in  the  original  form  of  government;  nor  in  the  second- 
ary, which  was  parochial  episcopacy  ;  nor  in  that  which  ab- 
sorbed the  rest,  the  diocesan."  Calvin  founded  the  doctrine 
of  ruling  elders  first  on  the  governments,  i  Cor.  12  :  28,  and 
afterward  on  i  Tim.  5:17;  but  for  a  thorough  examination 
of  the  whole  subject,  and  conclusive  proof  that  there  is  no 
support  of  this  theory  in  the  New  Testament,  see  an  article 
by  Dr.  Hitchcock,  in  the  "  American  Presbyterian  Review," 
1868.  If  the  single  text,  now  quoted  in  support  of  this  view 
(i  Tim.  5  :  17)  be  obeyed,  then  those  who  consider  that  it 
refers  to  lay-elders  ought  to  give  them  double  the  salary 
given  to  the  bishops. 

In  some  cases  in  the  New  Testament,  a  plurality  of  elders  in 
a  church  would  appear  (Acts  11  :  30  ;  14  :  23  ;  Phil.  1:1; 
Titus  1:5).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  the 
elder  is  mentioned  in  the  singular,  while  the  deacons  are  in 
the  plural.  In  like  manner  the  qualifications  of  a  bishop  are 
spoken  of — -he  must  rule  well,  etc.,  etc. 

The  ministry  is  in  no  sense  a  priesthood,  apart  from  the 
priestly  character  of  every  believer.  In  no  possible  sense 
are  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  church  successors  of  the 
priests  of  the  Levitical  dispensation.  The  priestly  words, 
Up^o^,  ■f^uaia,  etc.,  are  never  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
in  connection  with  the  work  or  office  of  a  bishop.  They  are 
applied  to  Christ  and  to  Christians  (Rom.  12:1;   i  Peter  2  : 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  Sf 

5),  and  many  other  places.  There  is  no  intimation  in  the 
New  Testament  of  the  existence  of  a  sacred  caste ;  but  that 
"  teachers  had  obtained  in  Paul's  day  a  fixed  official  position, 
is  manifest  from  Gal.  6  :  6  and  i  Cor.  9:14,  where  he  claims 
for  them  a  right  to  a  worldly  maintenance." 

If  the  New  Testament  is  so  clear  as  to  the  absolute  parity 
of  the  ministry,  and  to  the  existence  of  but  one  order  of  the 
ministry,  how  can  we  account  for  the  fact  that  by  the  third 
century,  episcopacy,  with  its  three  orders,  so  universally 
appears  ? 

The  theory  that  this  was  the  product  simply  of  ambition 
on  the  part  of  the  bishops  is  a  very  shallow  one.  Read 
"Lea's  Studies  in  Church  History."  There  are  some  con- 
siderations that  are  worthy  to  be  borne  in  mind. 

1.  The  utter  want  of  authentic  history  during  this  period. 
We  have  no  account  of  the  transactions  of  that  age,  of  which 
above  all  others  we  desire  exact  information.  There  is  a  wide 
gulf  between  the  close  of  the  inspired  history,  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  records  of  Christian  antiquity.  The  methods  of 
the  transformation  from  the  simple  forms  of  the  apostles  to 
diocesan  episcopacy  are  all  unseen  by  us. 

2.  The  want  of  recognized  leadership  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles  must  have  been  very  deeply  felt.  This  would 
be  all  the  more  prevalent  by  reason  of  the  character  of  the 
early  Christians.  They  were  children  ;  they  could  believe, 
could  live,  suffer,  and  die,  but  they  had  no  mature  Christian 
judgment ;  they  had  not  been  accustomed  to  the  exercise  of 
those  faculties  essential  to  self-government. 

3.  The  influence  of  the  political  constitution  of  the 
Roman  empire  was  always  very  powerful.  This  was  ever 
pervasive  and  present. 


68  CHURCH   POLITY 

4.  There  was  the  foreshadowing  of  the  apostasy,  the  work- 
ing of  that  principle  which  cannot  trust  to  the  simplicity  of 
the  gospel,  and  demands  an  organization  adapted  to  worldly 
ideas.* 

5.  The  demand  of  the  human  heart  always  and  everywhere 
for  a--sacramental  and  sacerdotal  religion. 

6.  There  is  no  error  in  the  papal  system,  the  date  of  whose 
introduction  can  be  shown.  As  far  back  as  you  can  trace 
any  definite  system  in  the  church,  you  can  find  substantially 
the  sacramental  system. 

DEACONS. 

The  apostolic  office,  as  we  have  seen,  included  all  others. 
The  first  of  which  the  apostles  would  divest  themselves 
would  be  the  lowest.  It  is  possible  that  an  account  of  this 
is  given  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts.  It  is  possible, 
also,  that  this  is  not  an  account  of  the  original  institution, 
but  of  the  appointment  of  Hellenistic  deacons.  It  is  pos- 
sible, also,  that  this  chapter  contains  merely  the  account  of 
the  provision  made  to  meet  a  special  emergency.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  word  deacon  is  not  found  here,  al- 
though the  verb  "  to  serve  "  is.  As  an  official  designation, 
the  word  appears  in  Phil,  i  :  i  and  in  i  Tim.  3  :  8-13. 

The  word  dtdxnvw;  always  implies  subordination,  and  as 
uniformly  the  first  grade  of  subordination.' 

' "  Christianity,"  says  Dr.  Arnold,  "  shared  the  common  lot  of  all  great  moral 
changes ;  perfect  as  it  was  in  itself,  its  nominal  adherents  were  often  neither  wise 
nor  good.  The  seemingly  incongruous  evils  of  the  thoroughly  corrupt  society  of 
the  Roman  empire,  superstition  and  skepticism,  ferocity  and  sensual  profligacy, 
often  sheltered  themselves  under  the  name  of  Christianity  ;  and  hence  the  heresies 
of  the  first  age  of  the  Christian  church." 

*  See  "  Baptist  Quarterly,"  January,  1869.  See  also  Smith's  "  Bible  Diction- 
ary," article  on  "  Deacons." 


The  new  testament  church  .       69 

The  moral  qualifications  for  the  oflfice  are  substantially  the 
same  which  bishops  are  to  possess,  with  the  exception  of  apt- 
ness to  teach  and  hospitality.  Their  domestic  arrangements 
and  relations  are  to  be  exemplary  ;  their  business  is  to  be 
reputable ;  they  are  to  be  wise  in  the  mysteries  of  the  faith, 
eminent  for  piety  and  conscientiousness,  and  of  proved  char- 
acter and  talent.  In  the  primitive  churches  there  were  dea- 
conesses ;  this  is  without  doubt  the  class  referred  to  by  the 
word  "wives  "  in  the  version  of  King  James  (i  Tim.  3:11). 

The  duties  of  the  deacons,  whether  men  or  women,  were 
to  serve  the  church  in  all  ways  which  did  not  fall  within  the 
province  of  the  bishop. 

CHURCH    DISCIPLINE. 

That  the  church  is  required  to  exercise  a  due  discipline 
over  its  members,  and  that  this  discipline  is  entrusted  to  the 
members  and  not  to  the  officers  of  a  church,  is  seen  from 
Matt.  18  :  15-17;  I  Cor.  5:3,4;  i  Tim.  i  :  1 9,  20 ;  Titus  3  : 
10  ;  2  Thess.  3  :  6.  The  two  great  branches  of  discipline, 
excision  and  restoration,  are  specifically  directed  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  church  in  i  Cor.  5  :  3-8  and  2  Cor.  2  :  5-10. 
In  the  first  of  these,  Paul,  though  an  apostle,  does  not  him- 
self excommunicate  the  offender,  but  directs  the  church  at 
its  regular  gathering  to  cut  him  off ;  and  in  the  latter,  when 
Paul  is  convinced  that  the  ends  of  discipline  have  been  an- 
swered, he  does  not  himself  restore  the  offender,  but  directs 
the  church  to  receive  him  again  to  its  fellowship. 

The  offenses  which  the  church  should  notice  may  be  di- 
vided into  two  great  classes — personal  offenses  and  public 
offenses. 

I.  Personal  offenses.  These  are  provided  for  in  Matt.  18  :' 
15-17. 


70  CHURCH   POLI'ry 

An  act  or  a  course  of  conduct  made  by  a  church  the 
basis  of  action  under  the  rule  given  by  our  Lord  in  this 
chapter,  must  deserve  the  notice  and  action  of  a  church, 
and  must  be  susceptible  of  proof.  These  characteristics 
being  ascertained,  then  it  must  appear  to  the  church  that 
the  directions  of  our  Lord  have  been  followed  in  the  spirit 
and  in  the  letter.  No  deviation  from  this  can  be  allowed. 
It  must  also  be  observed  that  the  final  step  is  taken  in 
consequence  of  the  refusal  to  hear  the  church. 

II.   Public  offenses. 

1.  Scandalous  sins.  Gross  immorality.  In  the  case  of 
these  sins  the  offender  should  be  immediately  separated  from 
the  church.  The  only  prerequisite  is  clear  proof  of  guilt. 
No  profession  of  penitence  should  stay  the  action  of  the 
church  ;  the  honor  of  Christianity  requires  that  no  assertion 
of  sorrow  or  of  a  determination  to  lead  a  new  life  suffices  to 
continue  a  murderer  or  other  notorious  and  abandoned  man 
in  the  fellowship  of  a  church  of  professed  members  of  Christ. 
Where  the  guilt  cannot  be  denied,  the  formality  of  a  trial 
need  not  take  place. 

2.  Heresy  :  which  is  faction-leading,  inculcating  religious 
error,  and  persisting  in  so  doing  to  the  grief  of  the  church. 
Erroneous  belief  is  no  ground  for  church  discipline ;  the 
error  must  be  maintained  in  such  way  as  to  destroy  the 
unity  and  fellowship  of  the  church  (Rom.  16:17;  i  Tim.  6  : 
3-5;  Titus  3  :  10,  11).  The  apostle's  direction  is,  Give 
these  strife-breeders  the  first  and  second  admonition,  and  if 
these  do  not  suffice,  exclude  them. 

3.  Disorderly  walking  (2  Thess.  3:6).  A  life  not  in 
accordance  with  the  commands  of  the  New  Testament ;  idle- 
ness, meddlesomeness,  disregard  of  family  obligation.  The 
dictate  of  sound  judgment  would  seem  to  be  in  such  cases  to 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  71 

pursue  the  spirit  of  the  injunction  in  the  case  of  the  trouble- 
maker,  and  give  a  warning  and  admonition  ;  if  this  does  not 
suffice,  suspend  from  church  privileges,  and,  finally,  exclude. 

There  are  other  cases  for  which  special  provision  is  made 
(Gal.  6:1).  If  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  caught  in  the 
act ;  if  under  the  pressure  of  sudden  and  unexpected  temp- 
tation the  man  has  yielded,  and  the  circumstances  are  such 
that  there  is  no  probability  that  it  will  be  repeated ;  then  the 
spiritual  ought  to  restore  such  a  one  without  any  public  action. 
Oftentimes  an  offense  is  committed  which  is  contrary  to  the 
real  character  of  the  person  offending.  It  is  wise  to  take 
no  notice  of  such  an  act.  Church  action  should  never  be 
undertaken,  when  the  purposes  of  church  action  can  better 
be  accomplished  without  it. 

The  case  of  pecuniary  difficulties  and  disagreements  is 
provided  for  in  i  Cor.  6:1-8;  James  2  :  1-9.  Members  of 
a  church  are  never  to  be  allowed  to  go  to  law  with  one  an- 
other. This  does  not  forbid  amicable  suits,  where  the  only 
method  of  arriving  at  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued,  as  in 
intricate  cases  of  trusteeship  and  guardianship,  is  to  secure  a 
legal  decision. 

Restoration  to  the  fellowship  of  the  church  ensues  when 
the  object  of  discipline  is  accomplished.  The'se  objects  are 
two-fold  -to  vindicate  the  character  of  the  church  as  a  moral 
and  spiritual  body,  and  to  secure  the  reformation  of  the  of- 
fender. When  these  are  accomplished,  the  offender  should 
be  restored. 

LETTERS    OF    DISMISSION. 

These  are  given  to  members  at  their  request,  when  for  any 
sufficient  reason  they  wish  to  transfer  their  membership  from 
one  church  to  another.  A  letter  of  dismission  may  be  ad- 
dressed  to   any    specifically  named   church,   c^x   it    may   be 


72  CHURCH   POLITY 

addressed  to  any  church  of  the  same  faith  and  order.  After 
the  letter  has  been  given,  and  while  the  individual  still  holds 
it,  the  person  dismissed  is  under  the  supervision  and  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  church,  so  far  as  general  Christian  character  is 
concerned,  but  is  not  obliged  to  perform  specific  church  duties 
in  connection  with  that  particular  church.  He  cannot  be  re- 
quired, e.  g.  to  attend  communion  there,  or  to  contribute  to 
the  support  of  public  worship.  But  as  far  as  the  letter 
vouches  for  him,  that  is  as  a  man  worthy  to  be  received 
into  any  Christian  church,  so  far  is  he  accountable  to  the 
church  while  he  retains  the  letter.  If  he  is  guilty  of  con- 
duct which  forfeits  Christian  character,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  church  whose  letter  he  holds  to  recall  that  letter,  and 
take  the  necessary  steps  of  investigation  and  discipline. 
After  the  letter  has  been  granted,  as  he  is  under  no  obliga- 
tions to  the  church  for  any  duties  to  the  church,  so  he  cannot 
exercise  the  privileges  of  a  member.  While  he  holds  the 
letter  he  cannot  vote  in  any  church. 

INTERNAL    GOVERNMENT    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

The  principles  which  determine  the  constitution  of  a 
church  are  no  less  applicable  to  its  government.  It  must 
spring  out  of  the  idea  of  the  church,  must  hold  vital  relations 
to  the  church,  and  must  be  that  which  in  its  workings  will 
most  naturally  develop  the  idea  of  the  church. 

The  church  exists  for  three  things,  as  far  as  our  present 
discussion  is  concerned  :  the  worship  of  God,  the  growth  of 
Christians,  and  the  spread  of  the  gospel. 

The  functions  of  the  church  which  relate  to  its  internal 
regulations  are  judicial  and  executive,  not  legislative.  In  all 
that  relates  to  the  admission  of  members,  for  example,  it  can- 
not make  any  change  in  the  terms  laid  down  in  the  New 


THi:   NEW   TESTAMENT   CHURCH  72, 

Testament.  It  has  no  right  to  require  an  identity  of  vdews, 
or  any  pledge  to  any  particular  line  of  conduct  as  a  basis  of 
admission. 

In  order  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  church  organization, 
it  is  legitimate  for  the  church  to  adopt  any  rules  which  are  in 
accordance  with  the  mind  of  Christ,  which  will  best  accom- 
plish that  end  ;  rules  for  the  transaction  of  business,  for  the 
.ime  and  place  of  meeting,  for  the  choice  of  a  pastor,  for  the 
obtaining  the  evidence  of  the  regenerate  character  of  appli- 
cants for  baptism,  etc. 

In  all  regulations  care  should  be  taken  not  to  transgress 
the  laws  of  Christ,  not  to  transgress  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
and  not  require  rigid  literal  conformity  to  the  rules  of  the 
New  Testament. 

EXTERNAL    RELATIONS. 

Is  there  any  earthly,  ecclesiastical  authority  superior  to 
that  of  a  local  church  f 

In  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  appearance  of  any  ec- 
clesiastical body  above  a  church,  to  which  the  local  church  is 
amenable.  Each  church  is  supreme  in  its  own  jurisdiction, 
subject  only  to  Christ.  There  is  in  the  Scripture  no  appear- 
ance of  any  universal  organization,  any  ecclesiastical  judica- 
tory, holding  relation  to  several  churches.  There  is  no  out- 
ward centre  of  unity,  no  periodical  assemblies.  Each  church 
performs  its  own  duties,  without  reference  to  any  foreign 
oversight  or  review.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  directions  of 
Christ  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Matthew ;  of  Paul  to  the 
churches  to  which  he  wrote ;  of  the  Spirit  to  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Acts  we 
have  an  account  of  the  church  at  Antioch,  evidently  not  gov- 
erned by  the  church  at  Jerusalem  or  by  any  other  body.     In 


74  CHURCH    POLITY 

tlie  council  held  at  Jerusalem,  whose  doings  are  recorded  in 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  questions  were  referred  to  the 
apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  at  Jerusalem  ;  there  was  no 
decree  promulgated,  but  a  compromise  recommended  for  the 
time  being,  which  had  no  obligatory  character.  Paul  does 
not  scruple  to  discuss  freely  one  of  the  points  at  issue,  that 
touching  meats  offered  to  idols. 

In  its  worship,  in  the  admission  of  members,  the  choice  of 
officers,  in  the  exercise  of  discipline  and  the  management  of  its 
affairs,  each  church  is  free  from  subjection  to  any  other  church. 

COUNCILS. 

A  council  is  an  assemblage  of  members  of  churches,  con- 
vened at  the  request  of  a  church,  of  a  member  of  a  church, 
or  of  a  number  of  members.  The  persons  composing  the 
council  may  be  appointed  by  the  churches  of  which  they  are 
members,  or  they  may  be  individually  selected  and  invited  by 
those  who  call  the  council. 

A  mutual  council  is  one  called  and  whose  members  are 
chosen  by  the  common  consent  of  all  persons  whose  position 
or  doings  are  to  be  submitted  to  the  council  for  deliberation 
and  decision. 

An  ex  parte  council  is  one  called  by  an  aggrieved  person 
or  persons,  when  the  church  or  churches  whose  action  is  the 
subject  of  complaint  refuse  to  call  a  mutual  council.  This 
latter  ought  to  be  resorted  to  only  in  extreme  and  very  rare 
cases.  The  instance  of  an  ex  parte  council  resulting  in  good 
can  hardly  be  produced.  Even  where  clear  injustice  has 
been  done,  it  is  generally  better  to  suffer  the  wrong  and  wait 
the  vindication  of  time. 

COUNCILS    ARE    CALLED 

For  the  constitution  and  recognition  of  churches,   for  the 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CHURCH  75 

ordination  of  ministers,  for  advice  in  questions  of  perplexity, 
for  a  formal  opinion  in  cases  referred  to  their  judgment. 

They  are  called : 

On  the  ground  of  common  interest  and  fellowship. 

To  secure  a  wider  wisdom  and  experience  than  that  pos- 
sessed by  a  single  church. 

To  secure  a  church  against  a  judgment  unconsciously 
biased  by  personal  or  party  interest. 

The  power  of  a  council  is  not  in  any  inherent  or  delegated 
authority  to  make  laws  or  regulations,  or  to  enforce  its  deci- 
sion, but  in  the  power  of  the  truth  on  regenerate  men  ;  in  the 
power  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  craved  by  the  council  in  such 
cases,  and  which  is  specially  promised  to  those  that  seek  it ; 
and  in  the  influence  of  men  of  acknowledged  probity,  impar- 
tiality, discretion,  wisdom,  and  spirituality. 

Hence,  in  all  cases  of  difficulty  and  perplexity  the  council, 
as  far  as  possible,  should  be  composed  of  men  unprejudiced, 
of  known  integrity,  capable  of  forming  a  judgment  on  the 
matters  entrusted  to  them,  and  of  acknowledged  spirituality. 
In  the  selection  of  members,  the  utmost  care  should  be  taken 
to  have  the  council  command  respect  for  its  evident  impar- 
tiality and  ability.  A  council  that  has  the  appearance  of  hav- 
ing  been  selected  to  give  a  particular  verdict  will  have  no 
weight. 

The  letters  missive  should  always  state  the  purpose  for 
which  the  council  is  called,  and  should  give  the  names  of  all 
the  churches  and  persons  who  are  invited  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  council.  The  business  of  the  council  is  restricted 
to  the  matter  or  matters  named  in  the  letters  missive,  and 
the  members  to  the  persons  appointed  by  the  churches,  or 
invited  in  the  letters.     The  council,  after  it  has  convened, 


76  CHURCH  POLITY 

cannot  admit  other  members.  It  may  invite  them  to  a  seat, 
and  to  assist  in  the  deliberations,  but  it  cannot  empower  them 
to  vote. 

If  possible,  councils  called  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
the  fitness  of  a  candidate  for  ordination  should  not  proceed 
to  the  public  exercises  of  the  ordination  the  same  day.  In 
other  words,  the  decision  of  the  council  should  not  be  pre- 
judged. 


410 


INDEX 


Angel  of  chiirch,  58. 

Antiquity  of  errors,  68. 

Apostasy  foreshadowed,  68 

AjKJstolate:  rise.  52;  duration,  53,  55; 
qualifications,  54  ;  inauguration,  55  ; 
comprehensive,  55. 

Authority :  for  church,  18 ;  immersion,  30 ; 
restricted  communion,  42 ;  church  pol- 
ity, 47 ;  councils,  75. 

Autonomy  of  church,  73. 

Baptism :  appointed,  29 ;  significance,  29, 
30 ;  mode,  30 ;  consensus  as  to  mode, 
30 ;  subjects,  31 ;  precedent  to  com- 
munion, 42. 

Believers :  whole  body,  17 ;  local  body,  22. 

Bishop :  not  pastor  and  teacher,  58 ;  titles, 
59;  identity  with  presbyter,  60;  di- 
Tinely  appointed,  61 ;  duties,  61 ;  qual- 
ifications, 63;  call,  63;  ordination, 
64 ;  plurality,  66. 

Call  to  ministry,  63. 

Calvinistic  theory  of  communion,  39. 

Church :  derivation  of  Greek  term,  11 ; 
classic  use,  14 ;  Septuagint  use,  16 ; 
New  Testament  use,  17;  defined,  17, 
22;  composed  of  professed  believers, 
24 ;  baptized,  26 ;  on  credible  profes- 
sion, 26;  why  associated,  27;  ordi- 
nances, 27  ;  polity,  46  ;  life,  46 ;  early 
stages,  47  ;  authority  for,  47  ;  organic, 
47  ;  fundamental  principles,  48 ;  regu- 
lated liberty.  .50;  functions  and  offi- 
cers, 51  (aee  officers  of  church)  ;  tran- 
sient officers,  52 ;  permanent  officers, 
58 ;  approval  of  minister's  call,  63 ; 
discipline,  69 ;  letters  of  dismissal,  71 ; 
internal  government,  72 ;  external  re- 
lations, 73 ;  autonomy,  73  ;  councils,  74. 

Close  communion  (see  restricted  com- 
munion). 

Communion :  nature,  35 ;  theories,  39- 
41 ;    Zwinglian,    39 ;   Calvinistic,    39 ; 


German  Reformed,  40;  Lutheran,  40 

High  Church    Episcopalian,   41 ;   Ro 

manist,  '41 ;    participants  of,  41,  42; 

why  restricted,  42 ;  relation    to  bap. 

tism,  42  ;  objections  to  restriction,  43 ; 

frequency,  44  ;  title,  44. 
Constituting  a  church,  74. 
Councils  :  nature,  74  ;  mutual, 74  ;  exparte, 

74 ;  objects,  74  ;  grounds  of  call,  75  j 

scope  of  authority,  75 ;  personnel,  75 ; 

letters  missive,  75;   date  of  ordina^ 

tion,  76. 
Criteria  of  church  polity,  49. 

Date  of  ordination,  76. 

Deacons :  origin,  68 ;  meaning  of  titl«, 
68  ;  qualifications,  69 ;  duties,  69. 

Detail  of  New  Testament  polity  not  bind- 
ing, 47. 

Determination  of  polity,  46. 

Disagreements,  pecuniary,  71. 

Discipline :  excisions,  69 :  for  personal 
offenses,  69 ;  public  offenses,  70 ;  other 
cases,  71. 

Dismission :  letters  of,  71. 

Disorderly  walk,  70. 

Duties:  of  bishop  or  elder,  61;  of  deju 
con,  69. 

Ecclesia,  14. 

Elders :  ruling,  66 :  plurality,  66 ; 

Elements  of  church  life,  48. 

Episcopalian  theory  of  communion,  high 
church,  41. 

Errors :  as  to  ministry,  66 ;  ruling  elders, 
66;  priestly  functions,  66:  three  or- 
ders, 67. 

Evangelists :  office,  57 ;  transient,  58. 

Evils  of  open  communion,  43. 

Faults,  uncharacteristic,  71. 
Frequency  of  communion,  44. 

German  Reformed  theory  of  communion, 
40. 

77 


78 


INDEX 


Government  of  church:   discipline,   69; 

internal,  72;  principles,  72  ;  aimts,  72; 

scope,  72 :  rules  of  order,  73. 
Growth  of  polity,  46. 

Heresy,  70. 

High  church  theory  of  communion,  41. 

Human  elements  of  church  life,  47. 

Immersion  :  cla.ssic  Greek,  30 ;  New  Tes- 
tament, 30;  significance,  30;  consen- 
sus for,  30. 

Inauguration  of  apostolate,  55. 

Instructions  to  apostles,  51. 

Internal  government  of  church,  72. 

Inward  vocation  to  ministry,  63. 

Kalein  (Ka\(lv)  and  its  derivatives,  11. 

Law  and  liberty,  50. 

Leading,  duty  of  bishops  or  presbyters,  62. 

Leadings  to  ministry,  63. 

Letters :    of  dismission,  71 ;   missive   for 

council,  75. 
Liberty  and  law,  50. 
Lord's  table,  43. 

Lutheran  theorj'  of  communion,  40. 
Ministry :   call,  63 ;  ordination,  64 ;  errors 

about,  66. 
Mutual  council,  74. 

Native  qualifications  for  ministry,  63. 

Nature :  of  positive  laws,  28 ;  of  baptism, 
30 ;  of  communion,  35 ;  of  apostolate, 
52. 

New  Testament:  usage  of  as  to  baptism, 
30;  examples  of  restricted  commun- 
ion, 42 ;  church  polity,  47. 

Offenses:  personal,  69;  public,  70;  scan- 
dalous, 70;  heresy,  70;  disorderly 
walk,  70. 

Officers  of  church :  51 ;  transient,  52 ;  apos- 
tles, 52;  prophets,  56;  evangelists, 
57;  pastors  and  teachers,  58;  "angel 
of  church,"  58 ;  permanent,  58 ;  bishop 
or  presbyter,  58 ;  deacons,  68. 

Open  communion  :  subverts  baptism,  43  ; 
not  consistently  urged,  43;  evils,  43; 
arguments  for,  43. 

Orders  of  ministrj'  not  three,  67. 

Ordinances:  defined,  27;  positive,  28:  im- 
portance, 28;  baptism,  29;  commun- 
ion, 35. 

Outgrowth  of  church  life,  46. 


Participants  in  communion,  41. 

Pastors  and  teachers,  58 ;  not  bishops,  SS. 

Pecuniary  disagreements,  71. 

Permanent  oflScers  of  church,  58;  needed, 
59. 

Personnel  of  council,  75. 

Polity  of  church:  determination  of,  46; 
an  outgrowth,  46;  stages,  47 ;  princi- 
ples, 48;  source,  50;  conformity  and 
liberty,  50. 

Positive  institutions,  28. 

Preaching,  a  duty  of  bishop  or  presbyter,  g 
61. 

Precedence  of  baptism  admitted,  43. 

Presbyter  (see  Bishop). 

Presiding,  a  duty  of  bishop  or  presbyter, 
63. 

Priestly  functions,  GO. 

Principles  of  polity  binding,  47. 

Prophets :  meaning  of  title,  56 ;  office  fore- 
told, 56;  rank,  56;  termination,  56. 

Providential  leadings  to  ministry,  63. 

Qualifications :  for  apostle,  54 ;  bishop  or 
presbyter,  63;  for  minister,  63;  for 
deacon,  69. 

Regulative  principles  of  polity,  48. 
Relations :  of  baptism  to  communion,  42 ; 

of  Christ  to  believer,  48 ;  of  Christ  to 

church,  49;  of  church-members,  49; 

of  criteria  as  to  polity,  49. 
Restorations,  71. 
Restricted  communion:  reasons  for,  42; 

objections  to,  43. 
Rise  of  apostolate,  52. 
Roman  empire,  example  of  polity,  67. 
Romanist  theory  of  communion,  41. 
Ruling,  a  duty  of  bishop  or  presbyter,  62. 

Sacerdotal  ideas,  68. 

Sacramental  theoriesof  communion,  39. 

Scandalous  sins,  70. 

Scriptural  authority  for  church  polity,  47. 

Shepherding,  a  duty  of  bishop  or  presby- 
ter, 61. 

Sins,  scandalous,  70. 

Stages  of  growth  in  early  church,  47. 

Strict  communion  (see  Restricted  com- 
munion). 

Table,  the  Lord's,  43. 

Teaching,  a  duty  of  bishop  or  presbyter. 

62. 


Teachers,  58. 
Three  ordere  of  ministry,  67. 
Timothy,  57. 

Titles :  of  bishop  or  presbyter,  59 ;  of  dea- 
con, 68. 
Titus,  57. 


INDEX  79 

Truth,  sole  authority  of  councils,  75. 


Uncharacteristic  faults,  71. 
Vocation  to  ministry,  63. 
Zwinglian  theory  of  communion,  39. 


DATE  DUE 

HIGHSMITH  #45115 

Th«oto9'Cal  S*fntnary-Sp**f  Lt6f«r> 


1    1012  01016  7825 


:i;,i:,i;ni,iiii!!lll!l!li!lir 


'I   .  Ii  i 


-ii 


'n'l! 
,:'!', lilliiilllii 


;;;i     i! 


